Commission Investigation Division
Analysis of Burglar Alarm Task Force

June 4, 2003

Background

On April 9, 2002, the Board of Police Commissioners (Board) adopted a Verified Response Alarm policy for the Los Angeles Police Department. The Verified Response Alarm policy requires that a burglary alarm be verified through private guard response, remote video electronic monitoring, or an eyewitness confirmation of potential criminal activity from the homeowner, business owner or other responsible party. The Board directed the Department to prepare an implementation plan and on January 7, 2003, the Department submitted a draft Special Order and proposed amendment to the City’s Alarm Ordinance, 103.206 LAMC. Under the draft order, which was approved by the Board, robbery, panic and duress alarms, and alarm activations that occur at a licensed firearms dealer would be exempt from the verification requirement. Also exempted are alarm activations at any location monitored by the Department, Communications Division (e.g. City Council offices), and temporary alarms monitored by Burglary Auto Theft Division, and all other City departments.

At the request of the City Council, the implementation of the Verified Response Alarm policy was postponed until a Council-formed Burglary Alarm Task Force (Task Force) could provide its recommendations on this policy change. The Task Force completed its review on April 11, 2003, and presented its findings at a joint meeting of the City Council’s Public Safety and Education and Neighborhood Committees. The Committees adopted the Task Force’s recommendations and further recommended that the Council ask the Board of Police Commissioners to include the Task Force recommendations in their final alarm response policy. On April 22, 2003, the City Council approved the Committee’s recommendations and forwarded the Task Force report to the Police Commission.

While this was occurring, the Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association (GLASSA) filed a civil suit in an effort to stop the Commission from implementing a verified alarm policy. Though the judge in that case has determined that the Police Commission has the authority to implement a verified alarm policy, the matter is still active. This litigation has caused the Board to be cautious in its public discussion of the policy.

Discussion

The Task Force made thirty-one recommendations separated into seven categories. Those subjects included police response/dispatch, verification protocols, false alarm fees, alarm permits, public education and Fire Department issues. Attached is a matrix identifying the thirty-one recommendations within the seven categories followed by a staff analysis for each recommendation. Many of those recommendations deserve further study and Commission Investigation Division (CID) will do that work. Other recommendations present substantial procedural obstacles for Commission staff or are contingent upon revisions to the Alarm Ordinance, state law or self-regulation by the alarm industry. This is a significant area of concern as the Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association (GLASSA) is a “trade” association without any management or operational authority over individual private security companies. Consequently, GLASSA has no authority over industry members nor does it have any meaningful enforcement powers. It also bears mention that those recommendations involving financial cost are borne only by the City or the alarm user, not the alarm company.

However, the recommendation that most significantly alters the Commission’s original policy decision is the proposal to require alarm verification only after three false alarm occurrences at the same location within a 12-month period. This recommendation is extremely problematic in that it would create a constantly changing two-tiered dispatch policy raising serious City liability concerns if calls are not dispatched accurately using the changing two-variable—three false alarms; 12-month period—dispatch policy.

The analysis of each recommendation aside, the Task Force recognized that “successful implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force is dependent upon the City knowing all the alarm users in the City.” To date, the alarm industry has been unwilling to provide their client lists to the City unconditionally. However, the Office of the Chief Legislative Analyst has been asked to seek this information from the alarm industry.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board approve this report and direct the Department to implement the verified response policy.