LAPD's Alarm Policy
accepted modifications to the Verified Alarm Policy

July 23, 2003

As a result of a 4-1 vote by the Board of Police Commissioners, Mayor Hahn's proposed modifications will become the backbone of LAPD's Alarm Policy.

Deputy Mayor Roberta Yang gave the presentation on behalf of the Office of the Mayor. You'll find the entire presentation below ... an outline of his compromise proposal.

Two Councilmembers spoke in its support, Janice Hahn and Wendy Greuel, and one against, Jack Weiss, and in the end Commission President Rick Caruso cast the sole dissenting vote.

The three Chiefs of Police associated with the current Board of Police Commissioners, Chief Parks, Chief Pomeroy and Chief Bratton all had supported a system that required verification.

But now the actual Policy will be a combination of recommendations from the Burglar Alarm Task Force (BAT Force), most of which had already been agreed to by Commission Staff, and the Mayor's modifications.

Essentially alarm uses will be "allowed," but fined for, two false alarms per year. As always they'll be required to register their alarm annually, and pay a fee.

There are still a fair number of things to work out, such as how to educate the public, how to rewrite ordinances, how to coordinated the various City Agencies and Departments and how to integrate the software requirements.

On this last note, a workaround has been found for the current system, but a brand new one is due to come online in January. The supplier will have to modify the software originally ordered to accommodate tracking of, and billing for, false alarms.

It's also not clear what legal ramifications the plan will produce, what financial consequences the City might face if it is sued for "mistakes," and what an appeal process for alarm owners might be like.

While the costs for all this are as yet unknown, the two major alarm industry groups representing almost 100% of the local Alarm Companies had promised to provide their complete databases of customers for the first time if the Mayor's policy modifications were adopted.

We hope they'll come through.

They've been asked repeatedly for such a list for some 10 years, ever since the City began requiring alarm registration, but have denied access to it until now.

Annual fees for burglar alarms, and fines for their misuse, have been required in Los Angeles for the past decade, yet the City has never had these customer lists provided by the industry, and the Police Department has little idea who currently uses alarms.

Only those who chose to voluntarily comply with the registration process are in the current system, and the vast majority are not.

As a result the Office of Finance has not been able to track and collect the money due from LA's burglar alarm users.

Now such a list will be essential to the implementation of the plan, and private collection agencies may become involved.

It's been mentioned that moneys linked to the Alarm Policy might make their way directly into the Police Department budget, not the City's General Fund, and could used for a variety of LAPD's needs.

Following the acceptance of his proposal, Mayor Hahn put out a short statement saying, "I am pleased that the Police Commission adopted the compromise policy that includes many of the thoughtful recommendations of the Burglar Alarm Task Force. The new policy balances the need to maximize the use of our scarce police resources while addressing community concerns about LAPD’s response to burglar alarms."

He concluded, "Over the long term, building our police force is the best solution to meeting our neighborhood needs, and I will continue to work with LAPD and the City Council to improve recruitment and hiring of police officers."

The entire outline of the Mayor's plan is below.

But we'll also provide a link here to our previous articles about the Verified Alarm Policy (now modified). Of special note is the group of articles in late May and early June which describe the recommendations of the Burglar Alarm Task Force and the Police Commissions commitment to the majority of its requests.

These, in combination with the Mayor's proposal, will become the new Alarm Policy.

Previous LACP articles on Burglar Alarms

Proposed Modifications to LAPD's Alarm Dispatch Policy the Office of the Mayor - presented to, and accepted by, the Police Commission July 23, 2003 Introduction In January 2003, the Police Commission approved the Department's implementing order for a verification policy governing how the Los Angeles Police Department would process dispatches to alarm notifications. Under the order, Police Department dispatchers would request third part or other verification of criminal activity at a location where an alarm had been activated. No changes in dispatch were made for panic alarms, which have continued to be dispatched as a high priority by the Department. Following the action by the Police Commission, the proposed change in alarm dispatch policy was forwarded to City Council. Council assembled the Burglar Alarm Task Force, comprised of community representatives, representatives of the alarm industry and City departments. This Task Force developed recommendations for further consideration. Following the action by the Police Commission, and in light of concerns subsequently expressed by a number of stakeholders, Mayor Hahn requested further consultation among City staff to ensure all feasible options had been explored prior to final implementation of the new verified alarm policy. Mayor Hahn's Goal Mayor Hahn's goal is to achieve a balance between scarce police resources and concerns expressed by the community. At the Mayor's request, representatives from the following City entities met: Police Commission Police Department (Operations, Communications) Office of Finance Councilmember Janice Hahn's Office Information Technology Agency Mayor's Office This group focussed on the following: Potential technological modifications to the Police Department's dispatch system. Statutory provisions in Los Angeles and other California cities governing alarm permitting. Burglar Alarm Task Force recommendations. Interface between the Office of Finance's permittee database and collection efforts, and the transfer of false alarm addresses to it from the Police Commission. Findings Our review revealed the following: Current City ordinance allows two false alarm contacts for permittees before fees can be imposed. Current City ordinance already requires some degree of verification. The City of Sacramento alarm ordinance provides an example in its permit requirements and enforcement provisions. A number of the Burglar Task Force recommendations should be forwarded to Council for adoption. The Police Department's dispatch system can be configured to track false alarm contacts on a rolling annual basis. The transfer of location information where false alarm contacts have occurred requires further coordination between the Police Commission and the Office of Finance. Recommendations Based on our review and consultation, we recommend that the Police Commission approve the following: 1) Request that Council seek the assistance of the City Attorney in drafting amendments to the City's alarm ordinance that mandate: a) Proof of issuance of an alarm permit prior to installation; b) Enforcement through issuance of infractions that apply to both the alarm user and installer; c) Fees for false alarm contacts starting with a $95 fee for the first false alarm and incremental increases of $50 for subsequent alarm contacts; d) Fees are doubled for non-permittees; e) Fees for late and delinquent permits of $50 annually in addition to the permit fee of $30 for each year in which a valid permit should have been issued, and f) An amnesty period of 30 days or until the next payment deadline set by the Office of Finance for permits issued for calendar year 2004 (whichever is longer) during which all non-permittees can apply for a permit without incurring additional fees. 2) Request that the Office of Finance confer with Police Commission and City Attorney to review collection and enforcement process (e.g. facilitating requests for fees on City Attorney letterhead similar to other City collection efforts. 3) Request that the Office of Finance make readily accessible on-line burglar alarm permit applications and payment processing on the City's website. Have Police Commission staff review requirements for electronic transmission. 4) Request that the Office of Finance work with the Mayor's Office to develop a public education campaign on how to apply for alarm permits and how to avoid the occurrence of false alarms (e.g. inserts in utility bills). 5) Direct the Police Department to work with the Information Technology Agency to modify the dispatch system to track false alarm contacts at locations, to count such contacts on a rolling annual basis, and to prompt dispatchers to request verification for false alarm contacts at locations with more than two (2) false alarm contacts in any rolling annual year. 6) Direct the Police Department to maintain its current dispatch policy with respect to the first two false alarm contacts at any given location on a rolling annual basis. 7) Direct the Police Department that in the event verification is requested and unavailable, the Department will broadcast and file the alarm notification. 8) Direct the Police Department to require that dispatchers obtain the State Alarm Company Operator (AOC) permit numbers when alarm companies call to request LAPD dispatch or the company name if no AOC is available, and that the Information Technology Agency develop system capability to track the AOC permit numbers and company name. Conclusion We believe that this compromise best balances the need to maximize scarce police resources and community concerns. While the best solution is the hiring of more police officers, we cannot ignore the need for this balance at this time.