KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ
ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGE
You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails?   Change your spam controls and white list ken@kirschenbaumesq.com 

************************************
Special Report:  Court rejects challenge to Sandy Springs, Ga., false alarm fines
July 18, 2020
****************************
Special Report:  Court rejects challenge to Sandy Springs, Ga., false alarm fines
****************************
            The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision on July 17, 2020 affirming the US District Court's dismissal of the challenge to the Sandy Springs, Ga ordinance directing false alarm fines against alarm companies and not end users.  The original dismissal and the Court of Appeals affirmance rests on procedural grounds; in other words, the lawsuit should never have been brought in the first place.  
            The decision leaves room for a proper challenge by a proper party.  What a waste of money and time.
            Here are a few excerpts from the decision, which by the way, is likely the end of the road for these plaintiffs [which include the GA alarm assoc] because only appeal available is a request to appeal to the US Supreme Court, an extremely unlikely chance of success there].  
 
                        " Two alarm companies and a trade association to which they belong challenge a city ordinance and resolution adopted by the city of Sandy Springs, located in Fulton County, Georgia. The ordinance and resolution subject alarm companies to a series of fines when a false alarm is sounded at one of the properties which they service. The Plaintiffs claim that the city of Sandy Springs and its Mayor Russell Paul and City Manager John McDonough denied them the substantive and procedural due process protections found in the United States and Georgia Constitutions. They also forward a claim under Georgia law asserting personal liability against the Mayor, the City Manager, and individual members of the City Council (John Paulson, Chris Burnett, Tibby DeJulio, Andy Bauman, Ken Dishman, and Gabriel Sterling) for enforcing the ordinance. At the heart of their claims is the allegation that the true purpose of the ordinance is simply to generate revenue for the City, and that the ordinance has no reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental interest."
                        "Plaintiffs Safecom Security Solutions, Inc. and A-Com Security Company, LLLP (two individual alarm companies), together with Georgia Electronic Life Safety & System Association (“GELSSA”), a non-profit trade association that represents alarm companies (together, “Plaintiffs”), bring this appeal. The two alarm companies are members of GELSSA and serve customers across Georgia, including in Sandy Springs (the “City”). Around 80% of the premises in Sandy Springs are protected by alarm systems, with between ten and eleven thousand alarms installed in all."
            "The Plaintiffs estimate that GELSSA members respond to around 775 alarm activations in Sandy Springs each year. Of these, alarm companies verify and disable the alarm in 90% of cases. For the remaining 10%, alarm companies request a dispatch from the appropriate Sandy Springs emergency services department. This case revolves around false alarms, where emergency services are dispatched to a location but no emergency is apparent. The Plaintiffs claim that false alarms are largely attributable to “chronic abusers”: 20% of alarm users trigger 80% of the false alarms."
            "In July 2017, the City of Sandy Springs passed Ordinance No. 2017-07-15 (the “Ordinance”) and Resolution No. 2017-07-99 (the “Resolution”). The Ordinance “governs alarm systems intended to summon a public safety department and requires registration, assessment of fees for excessive false alarms, [and] provides procedures for repeat offenders.” Ordinance, § 18-34(b). The purpose of the Ordinance “is to encourage alarm owners and alarm companies to properly use and maintain the operational effectiveness of alarm systems in order to improve the reliability of alarm systems and reduce or eliminate false alarms.” Id. § 18-34(a)"
            The district court dismissed the substantive due process claims, finding that the ordinance and resolution were rationally related to a legitimate interest of the City, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. After thorough review and having taken oral argument, we affirm. The ordinance at issue is an economic regulation that does not burden any suspect classification or fundamental right, so rational basis review applies. The ordinance and resolution at issue easily survive rational basis scrutiny. Imposing a fine on the alarm companies is rationally related to the City’s strong interests in reducing the number of false alarms that heavily burden its police and fire departments and waste public resources.
            The Plaintiffs also attack the ordinance as violating their procedural due process rights, pointing to what they describe as insufficient procedural safeguards in the ordinance’s appeal process. However, the Plaintiffs never lost an appeal under the ordinance, because they never attempted one. Nor have they explained how, absent an appeal, they were otherwise harmed by the allegedly deficient procedures in place. Instead, the Plaintiffs presented a factual list of the procedures at issue and summarily described them as flawed. Our case law is clear: there is no cognizable injury for standing purposes when a party fails to attempt an appeal and instead merely points to some procedural elements within a regulation, without alleging how those features injured them or even might potentially cause them some concrete harm. The Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim. The district court properly dismissed it as being nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects."
            "Plaintiffs Safecom Security Solutions, Inc. and A-Com Security Company, LLLP (two individual alarm companies), together with Georgia Electronic Life Safety & System Association (“GELSSA”), a non-profit trade association that represents alarm companies (together, “Plaintiffs”), bring this appeal. The two alarm companies are members of GELSSA and serve customers across Georgia, including in Sandy Springs (the “City”). Around 80% of the premises in Sandy Springs are protected by alarm systems, with between ten and eleven thousand alarms installed in all."
            "The Plaintiffs estimate that GELSSA members respond to around 775 alarm activations in Sandy Springs each year. Of these, alarm companies verify and disable the alarm in 90% of cases. For the remaining 10%, alarm companies request a dispatch from the appropriate Sandy Springs emergency services department. This case revolves around false alarms, where emergencyservices are dispatched to a location but no emergency is apparent. The Plaintiffs claim that false alarms are largely attributable to “chronic abusers”: 20% of alarm users trigger 80% of the false alarms."
            "In July 2017, the City of Sandy Springs passed Ordinance No. 2017-07-15 (the “Ordinance”) and Resolution No. 2017-07-99 (the “Resolution”). The Ordinance “governs alarm systems intended to summon a public safety department and requires registration, assessment of fees for excessive false alarms, [and] provides procedures for repeat offenders.” Ordinance, § 18-34(b). The purpose of the Ordinance “is to encourage alarm owners and alarm companies to properly use and maintain the operational effectiveness of alarm systems in order to improve the reliability of alarm systems and reduce or eliminate false alarms.” Id. § 18-34(a)"
            Case is titled:  2020 WL 4034995
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
THE GEORGIA ELECTRONIC LIFE SAFETY & SYSTEM ASSOCIATION, INC., SAFECOM SECURITYSOLUTIONS, INC., A-COM SECURITY COMPANY, LLLP, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. THE CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, RUSSELL K. PAUL, in his individual capacity, JOHN MCDONOUGH, in his individual capacity, JOHN PAULSON, in his individual capacity, CHRIS BURNETT, et. al., in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
****************************

To order up to date Standard Form Alarm /  Security / Fire and related Agreementsclick here:  www.alarmcontracts.com
*************************
CONCIERGE LAWYER SERVICE PROGRAM FOR THE ALARM INDUSTRY
You can check out the program and sign up here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/concierge or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304.
***********************
 
NOTICE:  You can always read our Articles on our website at ww.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles
***********************
THE ALARM EXCHANGEalarm classifieds alarm security contracts

    This area is reserved for alarm classifieds, alarm company announcements, solicitations, offers, etc. 
    There is no charge to post a listing here.Include your contact information, phone, email and web site.  If you would like to submit a post, please send an email to ken@kirschenbaumesq.com.  To create a reciprocal link to our website, click here.

************************************************
Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived: 
    Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list.  Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up.  You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site www.alarmcontracts.com
**************************
Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301
ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
www.KirschenbaumEsq.com