BlogLine

Can you get arrested for calling 911 too many times? The Eleventh Circuit says…maybe.

9/22/25

By: Juliana Y. Sleeper

Imagine moving to a rural area to escape the noise, ready to raise your newborn in peace and quiet. No traffic, no sirens, just crickets and the occasional owl. Peace, finally. Then your new neighbor moves in and decides to turn his backyard into a Disney World fireworks show. These weren’t backyard sparklers from your childhood. We are talking window-rattling, sky-filling blasts that made you half-expect to see Tinkerbell herself zip line over your roof. Because it is his private property, he can do it – says the local sheriff. And because it is the countryside, there aren’t the strict noise rules you’d find in the city — no ordinance saying fireworks only on the Fourth, so the nightly ‘grand finale’ is perfectly legal. At first, calling 911 feels like the only option. But if you keep calling after being told it’s allowed, when does it stop being a plea for help and start looking like harassment?

That’s essentially what happened to a Georgia woman who lived next door to a hunting club. From the time she moved in back in 2011 until 2018, she called 911 “a gazillion times” — her words — mostly to complain about the constant sound of gunfire. Thanksgiving Day in 2018 was no different. She and her husband first called the county’s non-emergency line twice, then escalated to 911 to report the shootings. Dispatchers kept repeating the same line: it is legal, nothing we can do. But she was not having it – and she dialed again and again. At that point, the sheriff’s office had had enough. Deputies swore out an affidavit for her arrest under Georgia law O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2(b)(2), which prohibits harassing or disruptive 911 calls. The woman was arrested, spent two days in jail but the charge was eventually dismissed by the district attorney.

The Eleventh Circuit wasn’t sympathetic. The court said deputies had “arguable probable cause” to believe her calls were meant to harass dispatchers, which gave them the shield of qualified immunity. And here’s where it gets even more interesting: the judges extended the “collective knowledge” doctrine — normally applied when officers share information — to 911 dispatchers. That means whatever dispatchers knew or believed about her calls counted as if the deputies themselves knew it. If dispatchers thought she was a nuisance caller, which in this case, they did, the deputies could act on that judgment without verifying it and they’d still be legally protected.

So what does this mean? For everyday people, the takeaway is that the right to call 911 isn’t unlimited. Repeated calls, even if motivated by genuine frustration, may be treated as misuse of the system. And under this ruling, dispatchers’ impressions now carry the same legal weight as sworn deputies. That means a series of calls — or even how those calls are perceived — can become the difference between being treated as a legitimate complaint or as conduct that leads to arrest.

For the legal world, the ruling is notable because it expands the “collective knowledge” doctrine to include 911 dispatchers. Traditionally, that doctrine held that the collective knowledge of law enforcement officers — so long as they maintained at least a minimal level of communication during their investigation — could be pooled together to justify an arrest or warrant. By extending this to dispatchers, the Eleventh Circuit broadened the evidentiary base that supports arguable probable cause and, in turn, qualified immunity.

In practical terms, dispatchers often serve as the information hub during an investigation. They can quickly access and relay details like a suspect’s criminal history, outstanding warrants or whether a car is reported stolen. Think about high-speed chase cases: when an officer radios in a license plate, dispatch may instantly respond with not only the registration and stolen-status but also the driver’s record. Under this ruling, does that mean officers in the middle of a chase are now deemed to “know” the suspect’s criminal history — and can act based on the idea that the person may be dangerous? That’s the kind of ripple effect this decision may raise in future cases.

At the end of the day, this case isn’t just about one woman’s frustration with gunshots fired on Thanksgiving Day. It’s about how the law expanded what counts as collective knowledge. By including 911 dispatchers, the court stretched the doctrine to cover information far beyond what an officer on the scene might actually know — from criminal histories to outstanding warrants to real-time data. Maybe that sounds like common sense. Maybe it feels like overreach. Either way, the scope of what officers are supposed to know has now been expanded. And if your new neighbor decides to put on a nightly Disney-style fireworks finale, you may want to think twice before calling 911 — because while Tinker Bell won’t be flying over your roof, deputies just might.

For more information, please contact Juliana Y. Sleeper at juliana.sleeper@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.