To some city officials it sounds like a good idea — instead of fining local citizens when their systems generate false alarms, why not fine the alarm companies instead? It is a proposal that keeps popping up throughout the United States and Canada, and one that the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC) and state alarm associations are working hard to address.
“The intent of these proposals is not always malicious,” says Stan Martin, SIAC Executive Director. “The individuals proposing fining alarm companies are often just trying to find ways to streamline collections and reduce administrative costs. They do not understand how our industry is structured or that their proposal may have unintended negative consequences.”
One of SIAC’s most important missions is explaining how our industry operates and how best to address alarm management issues and reduce unnecessary dispatches.
“One false perception that we address is that alarm companies are responsible for these systems,” Martin says. “We explain that 80 percent of all false alarms are caused by alarm users, not alarm companies.” Martin adds that a frequently-used analogy on this issue would be that fining an alarm company for an owner’s false alarm is similar to fining Ford for a driver who is caught speeding.
Often, this reasoned approach is enough to begin a discussion of how to best address alarm issues through use of the Model Ordinance promoted by SIAC; however, in some instances, a stronger and more aggressive approach is required.
The California Alarm Association successfully challenged one such ordinance from the city of Fontana. A California Superior Court upheld the challenge, noting that “on its face, (the law) creates an unconstitutional, irrefutable presumption regarding false burglary, robbery and panic alarms which violates procedural due process.”
The California court ruling does not create a binding precedent for other courts, however, it is helpful in getting the attention of city attorneys and law enforcement leaders. Multiple legal opinions from attorneys in various states retained to address the issue have indicated that fining alarm companies instead of the user would be illegal due to one or more of the following:
- the fines violate state alarm ordinances;
- they are an improper tax on alarm companies;
- they are an invalid exercise of municipal police power; and
- they violate due process and equal protection rights granted under state law or the U.S. Constitution.
“Legal opinions and litigation are a major expense and a last resort,” Martin says. “The most effective approach to dealing with this issue has been our continued collaboration with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and National Sheriffs’ Association, where we can develop personal relationships and discuss issues before they become a problem.”
SIAC invests a majority of its resources in preemptive efforts through outreach and education. One very successful tool is the formation of Alarm Management Committees within the state chiefs of police organizations where SIAC facilitates dialogue between chiefs and alarm dealers using the Model Ordinance as a starting point. Once a "State Model Ordinance" has been jointly agreed upon, individual agencies rarely stray outside the recommended model.
“This issue is not going away,” Martin says. “With approximately 18,000 police agencies across the country, it is more important than ever that we continue to track this issue and address it quickly through education and cooperation.”
The Model Ordinance was created by the Electronic Security Association (ESA) and the False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA), along with input from SIAC, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and National Sheriffs Association (NSA). It includes best practices and recommendations to reduce false dispatches and, in many cases, allow for cost recovery. Learn more about the Model Ordinance at www.siacinc.org/alarm_ordinance_info.aspx.
David S. Margulies is the media relations manager for SIAC (www.siac.org).
