CA: LAPD to Stop Responding to Unverified Alarms

Status
Not open for further replies.

BerettaNut92

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
9,723
Long, but interesting. So much for turning on the alarm and praying the po-po will save you.

The Los Angeles Police Department expects to stop responding to unverified burglar alarms in 60 days after a new policy pushed by Chief William J. Bratton survived a City Council veto effort Tuesday.

Bratton has called the policy, which was approved earlier this month by the Police Commission, an important step in his effort to make the Police Department more efficient and effective. Opponents argued that it would leave owners of homes with alarms vulnerable to criminals.

"The 15% of the patrol resources we now spend chasing false alarms ... that 15% of officer activity could be focused in the parks, in the schoolyards, on the streets — prioritized, focused patrols in areas where we know we have problems," Bratton said.

The council vote was a significant political victory for Bratton, who has poured a great deal of his honeymoon-period political capital into the policy.

The move has been vigorously opposed by homeowners groups, alarm companies and some council members. Still, at Tuesday's council meeting, those seeking to veto the policy could muster only eight votes, when 10 were needed. Six members, including council President Alex Padilla, supported the policy, which could take effect in 60 days.

Although the council can legally vote again on the issue by Feb. 4, Bratton and key council members said they do not believe that the votes required to scuttle the policy will materialize.

The council action came after the Police Commission agreed to delay implementation for 60 days to allow a task force to look at alternatives that might reduce the number of false alarms.

Councilman Jack Weiss, who supports the new policy, said Bratton needs the ability to deploy officers to deal with serious crime instead of chasing burglar alarm calls; last year, 92% of alarm calls were false.

"I am willing to give the Police Department the flexibility they need to deal with the epidemic of violent crime in this city," Weiss told his colleagues. He was joined in voting against the veto by Padilla, Cindy Miscikowski, Eric Garcetti, Ed Reyes and Tom LaBonge.

If the policy is not vetoed by Feb. 4, and if the Police Commission decides not to adopt the task force recommendations, it will automatically take effect 60 days from Tuesday, without the council being able to intervene again, according to council rules.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who led the fight for the veto, while her brother, Mayor James K. Hahn, supports the chief's policy, called on the Police Commission to schedule the policy for a second vote after the task force submits its recommendations. A second commission vote would allow the council to again exercise its veto powers.

However, Police Commission President Rick Caruso said he will not schedule a second vote on the policy and that he and his fellow commissioners plan to stand firm on the policy.

"We're not going to change our policy or our votes," Caruso said. "We are going to move ahead on it."

If the City Council overturns the policy and sends it back to the commission, "we would send it back [to them] again without any changes," he said. At the same time, Caruso said, the 60-day delay was appropriate to give residents more notification of the change, educate the public about the policy and properly train officers, something that the department was planning to do anyway.

Howard Sunkin, a lobbyist for the alarm industry, said the vote to create a task force was "a clear message that the public needs to be consulted before a final policy is developed."

"The alarm industry is grateful for that," he said.

Council members have received hundreds of phone calls, faxes, e-mails and letters from constituents — some rallied by the alarm industry and their lobbyists — to oppose the policy.

Councilman Hal Bernson said residents and business owners fear that they will be left to fend for themselves by the policy.

"We cannot abandon the public," Bernson said during the hourlong, emotionally charged debate. "We cannot let criminals know we will not respond when somebody's home is invaded."

Police Commission Executive Director Joe Gunn said there are so many false alarms now that the calls are given low priority, meaning that officers often take 45 minutes or more to respond. Under the new policy, once a call is verified, the police will respond with a high priority, arriving in 10 minutes or less, Gunn said.

The compromise approved by the council will create a task force within 10 days that will be made up of representatives of the LAPD, the alarm industry, neighborhood councils, citizen police advisory boards and city officials. Miscikowski said she sees the task force's role as working out ways to verify that alarms are genuine.
 
The LAPD tried something similar a few years ago when they had some really bad budget restraints...remember when they couldn't buy new cars??
Back then, they tried charging alarm owners per response to a false alarm.
Reality, I'm guessing that the alarms will improve in quality to limit false alarms, alarm companies will patrol their areas better & the poe - leece will continue to protect & serve.
 
How are they supposed to....

verify an alarm if no body shows up to see what is going on? Just apply a stiff fine for a false alarm and the false alarms will drop. What is the use of an alarm system that nobody responds to.....chris3
 
I think the big problem comes from do-it-yourself units that go off when the Santa Anas blow or a garbage truck drives down the block. I believe verification would come from a neighbor or security company monitoring the alarm.
 
Here's some exerpts (sp?) from today's paper:

Despite a new Los Angeles Police Department policy that will end police responses to unverified burglar alarms, the city's elected officials still will receive priority responses when alarms go off at their homes and offices, even if there is no confirmation that someone is breaking in.

The 15 City Council members, City Controller Laura Chick, City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and Mayor James K. Hahn — along with schools, city buildings and firearms dealers — will be exempt from the new policy, which is expected to take effect at the end of March.

There is evidence, meanwhile, that the city is part of the false alarm problem. Three field offices of Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who led the charge to overturn the LAPD's new policy, had 47 false alarms in the last 18 months, Hahn said. At her Watts office alone, the alarm mistakenly went off 23 times between July 2001 and December 2002.

Unlike other Los Angeles residents, who are fined $95 after a first false alarm, city officials do not have to pay false-alarm fees or the annual alarm permit fee.

The average police response to burglar alarms at the homes and businesses of the general public, meanwhile, takes about 45 minutes. Under the new policy, LAPD officials said, they will respond to verified alarms within 10 minutes.
 
Golly, gee whiz, Batman, ain't you glad it takes longer than ten minutes to kill somebody? To rob a person in their home or store?

I can't begin to express how impressed I am by the advantages of city residency.

Art
 
This is news? :)

I called the Richmond City police about 20 years ago when I heard a very loud alarm go off. The first question I got was "Business or residence?" I didn't know because I'm in a 100-year-old neighborhood with a mixture of buildings and it was almost a block away.

Me: Why?
Them: We don't respond to residential alarms.
Me: Want me to go look?
Them: Okay.
Me: Should I take the .357 or the shotgun?
Them: (pause) Okay, we'll send a car by.

As it turned out, it was a residence and the owners were out of town. The alarm sounded for the, I don't remember exactly, 4 or 5 hours until sundown and 'somebody' finally put an extension ladder up against the house and cut the wire to the noise maker. :) Hey, too bad, none of the neighbors had a key or knew where to reach the owners.

John
 
A KFI 640 radio personality quipped that the high crime areas don't have alarms anyway. The pricey areas are the ones who can afford the alarm services. Councilwoman Hahn's son works for an alarm company, according to the commentator. She's leading the fight to take the decision making out of PD control and make it a political decision. Big surprise.
 
Despite a new Los Angeles Police Department policy that will end police responses to unverified burglar alarms, the city's elected officials still will receive priority responses when alarms go off at their homes and offices, even if there is no confirmation that someone is breaking in.

One set of rules for them, another set for us.......

Is anyone else disturbed that the gummint officials get taken care of by the cops, but not us poor unwashed masses?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top