June 6, 2011
******************
***********
Comments
***********
Hello Ken;
As usual, you are at the forefront of enlightening the alarm industry about coming changes. With that in mind, talking about the IACP, I'll try to not kill the messenger. I went through the IACP blog for alarm response suggestions. And as usual, there is always a sticking point or two. The main point that the chief's are missing, or maybe they forgot, the police officer is a public servant. Being a retired police officer, I don't mean that in a bad way at all. But, like it says on most police cars "To Protect and Serve." Of course I always like to throw in "After Coffee and Donuts." It seems that the IACP is modeling their recommendations after towns like Montclair, NJ. I understand that police response to false alarms is a hazard to the community and the police officers themselves, but I think that it is reprehensible that local government should turn police response into a money making venture. I know that I have ranted down this road before, but it just is not right. The spirit of any alarm ordinance when they were first adopted was to encourage people to properly maintain their security systems. How do police administrators justify making money on a resident (who pays taxes) who is having a problem with his alarm system? As a rule, I do not schedule service calls every time a customer's system has a false alarm. If a resident/customer fails to properly latch their doors or arm the system properly and it causes a police response, yes, at some point they should be fined. In the town of Montclair, NJ, they get one false alarm per calendar year. By the time I schedule a service call, (usually after the second false alarm from the same zone) the customer is already into the fine schedule. I have a few customers there that are more afraid of getting fined than having their homes burglarized. How crazy is that?
Here is a section of the paper from the IACP:
1. enhancing call verification (two-call verification);
2. utilizing alarm control panels built into ANSI SIA CP 01 standards or other technology in all new alarm installations;
3. requiring alarm permits with fees;
4. allowing a maximum of two free responses before incurring fines; and
5. ceasing response to chronic abusers.
For #1, maybe they should encourage alarm manufacturers to make panels with enhanced cross zoning. The alarm won't send a signal until two zones are violated. I agree with #2 and #3 (within reason.) Montclair and now Toms River, NJ are using ATB (Alarm Tracking and Billing) and they charge customers $50.00 per year to register their alarms. That is outrageous.
#4 is ludicrous.
A "maximum" of two free responses is doing nothing more than making people fearful of using their security systems. I have spoken to the people at ATB, and reasoning with them is tantamount to wandering onto private property, and then try to reason with the guard dogs. If a customer is having a problem, they should be given a reasonable amount of time to resolve the issue, and then the "free response" clock should go back to zero.
#5 is a perfect example of why police departments get sued. If a security system in a business malfunctions say more than once or twice in a month, and there have already been a few false alarms due to employee error, (and let me get this right,) ATB will "track" the falses and then promptly "bill" the resident/business owner. But then they reach some magic number where they are considered a "chronic abuser" and they will decide to just not respond to an alarm? You know that is when the burglary will occur. I could see them going to a modified response to a chronic offender (no lights and sirens,) but respond just to make sure everything is OK.
How the hell can they justify fining someone and then not even respond?
We have reached the tipping point in New Jersey. There is just way too much government regulation. I keep thinking of Henry David Thoreau's quote: "The government that governs least, governs best."
John from NJ
************
If I could send you video attachment, you would see how stupid police departments are and how they don't care about your privacy or safeguarding sensitive information - like the rest of us is required to do by law. So when cops want to write tickets, they should write it to themselves in house and at least save gas!
Dusan
*********
Ken
The summary of the IACP Paper by Lee Jones left a few things out. It is a simple effort to highlight what has proven most effective. It stresses:
· The productivity of IACP’s 12 year partnership with industry
· Implementing Enhanced call verification
· Using CP-01 Compliant Panels
· Requiring permits and fees
· Allowing a maximum of 2 free false alarms before fining the user or alarm company
· Ceasing response to chronic abusers- This is not verified response as Lee had indicated. Stopping response to chronic abusers has been a part of the model ordinances for years
· Forming Alarm Management Committee with at least three active chiefs and three alarm industry leaders
It does promote Zero tolerance – but defines it as recovering the costs of false alarms “Zero tolerance is defined as “zero or near zero cost to the local PD budget or other local resources, without compromising public safety, to operationally support the security alarm industry, a private interest group, to fulfill private contracts for private services.” .
While some in law enforcement or industry may not agree with individual recommendations in the paper, it seems to me to be a reasonable summary of what communities should consider in their programs.
To read the full paper visit - http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TRbfX8iOO1k%3D&tabid=391
Brad Shipp
NESA
***********
Ken,
I must say I'm disappointed to see something like this published in an "Industry Legal Email Newsletter", readers might actually believe the statements made are factual, when they are mostly distorted and manipulative interpretations that suite the author's wishful and self-serving interests. The position paper he refers to is not on the IACP website because it was removed over a week ago. Protocol and professional respect for the IACP leadership process cause me to limit further comment at this time. I will respond with specifics, when it is appropriate.
Respectfully,
Stan Martin
Executive Director, SIAC
*********
Ken
Your email was quite startling so we did a search on Google and we
found what we believe is the IACP's position in detail which we have
listed below, for your readers benefit.
IACP
Position Paper on Alarm Management
Each law enforcement agency operates in a unique environment of
federal court rulings, state laws, local ordinances, regulations,
judicial and administrative decisions and collective bargaining agreements
that must be considered by a chief while designing policies and
procedures for their department.
In addition, the formulation of specific agency policies must take into
account local political and community perspectives and customs,
prerogatives and demands; often divergent law enforcement
strategies and philosophies; and the impact of varied agency resource
capabilities, among other factors.
With this in mind these alarm management guidelines and documents
were designed to provide law enforcement executives with
information they need to develop solutions that address the needs of
their community. They do not represent a "suggested" or "model"
solution that law enforcement agencies are recommended or required
to follow.
For over twelve years the IACP has been an active leader in partnership
with the security industry in strategies to reduce alarm dispatches. As a result,
nationally, alarm dispatches have been substantially reduced during a time when
alarm system installations have more than doubled. Numerous joint studies have been conducted on alarm management to determine the most effective measures to reduce alarm dispatches. When considering the balance between community expectations, overall public safety, limited resources and IACP recommended initiatives such as Community
Policing, the IACP has determined the following elements/best practices
should be considered in any Alarm Management Program, by ordinance and/or
Department policy:
1. ECV. Enhanced Call Verification commonly referred to as
Two Call Verification. Where by ordinance or policy, a
requirement for alarm monitoring centers to make two calls to two
different numbers (one typically a cell phone) prior to calling the
PSAP in an effort to determine the cause of the alarm and whether
or not a dispatch is required. This practice was endorsed by the
IACP general membership via resolution in 2004.
2. Utilizing alarm control panels built to ANSI SIA CP 01
standards or other technology in all new alarm installations.
This national standard or other new and emerging technology for
alarm control panels can be highly effective against the number one
cause of alarms "user error" if used by all alarm installers and
monitoring companies. All major manufacturers produce these
panels and new technology is being researched to further manage
user error. It is not the intent of the IACP to endorse any singular
technology to manage alarms, but to support research and use of
any technology that addresses this problem. This practice was
endorsed by the IACP general membership via resolution in 2005.
3. Requiring Alarm Permits w/fees Registration of alarm systems
is beneficial for the effective and efficient management of alarm
programs. By recording system owner information you have
responsible party documentation for fines/renewals/policy or
ordinance change notifications. Nominal fees for registration
routinely cover costs associated with administration of these
programs. Original system registration and annual fee collection
can also be administered by the private monitoring sources for their
respective customers. Alarm companies should be required to
provide to local law enforcement a list of residential and commercial
customers in an electronic database that is in an acceptable format
to the local law enforcement agency
4. Free Responses/Fines Setting reasonable fines for alarm
dispatches can be a significant deterrent to offenders. Allowing a
maximum of two free responses before incurring fines is advisable
in addition "zero tolerance"1 policy is also acceptable. When
combined with restricting response to abusers; a reasonable fine
structure will accomplish all reduction goals and allow for higher
collection rates. Finally the responsibility for fines and fees can be
levied against either the alarm owner or the private alarm company,
or monitoring company that initiates the false alarm.
5. Ceasing Response Law enforcement should stop responding to
chronic abusers and non-emergency requests from alarm
monitoring companies. It has been determined that many abusers
will just "write checks" to cover police response. An agency should
establish a response cut off point at whatever may be politically
supported and may include "zero tolerance". Proper notice should
be sent to owner/premise/monitoring source with a right to appeal
and/or take corrective action for reinstatement.
ADDITIONAL IACP RECOMMENDATIONS:
ENFORCEMENT When ALL of best practices in this document are combined
into an alarm ordinance and/or department policy that is strictly
enforced, and
1 Zero tolerance is defined as "zero or near zero cost to the local PD
budget or other local resources, without compromising public safety, to operationally support the security alarm industry, a private interest group, to fulfill private contracts for
private services.' there are no exceptions for schools, government buildings, churches,
banks, you can expect alarm dispatch reductions of 50% to 70%. If the number of
free responses are reduced to one or zero, and the ordinance or policy is
strictly enforced with good administration (in-house or outsourced) an agency
could see up to 90% reduction in alarm dispatches over a several year period of
time.
ALARM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES IACP recommends formation and
active participation by SACOP members in this highly successful
initiative promulgated by SIAC (alarm industry) and supported by IACP. In an effort
to establish a permanent communication structure at the state level these
committees are being formed across the country. The state chiefs
association should establish an Alarm Management Committee with at least three
active chiefs and invite three alarm industry leaders to join the committee.
Typically one of the first tasks the committee undertakes should be to promote
"zero tolerance" as well as reviewing the IACP recommended best practices
within the constraints of state laws and/or local politics. Currently established
Alarm Management Committees contact information is available through
IACP/SACOP or the website at www.siacinc.org.
When we read the more thorough position it is not quite as ominous as
the short version at first suggests. If somehow our enclosure is
incorrect, please advise.
As the IACP position we have seems reasonable, with the exception of
the last paragraph regarding zero tolerance and paragraph 4 regarding
charging the alarm companies.
With customer error being the greatest cause of false alarms in
addition to environmental conditions in the customers location is
valid reason these fines should remain with the end user and not the
alarm companies to prevent this customer error problem from becoming
further rampant.
Alarm companies have done a good job over the years in the reduction
of false alarms and continue to do so and should not be penalized for
situations beyond their control and placing fines on these alarm
companies would be unquestionably beyond their financial ability to pay.
We agree on additional use of ECV (Enhanced Call Verification) as we
have seen the benefit from our position.
If you or your readers believe I am missing something here, please
advise.
Thank you
Bob Keefe