Legal Brief: Has the Alarm Industry Heeded its Wake-Up Call?

Bill Gates once said that “your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.”

Alarm company owners and executives can certainly learn a lot from unhappy end-customers, but there are other stakeholders that they may be overlooking: Law enforcement.

The traditional business model of the private alarm industry was built on the back of law enforcement; however, the high false alarm rate in many communities has undermined that business model and continues to threaten it. This has led some jurisdictions to impose far more rigid regulatory schemes, including significant fines, cancellation of alarm permits, refusal to dispatch first responders, etc.

The Wake-Up Call

Absent some form of verification of the alarm condition, many in law enforcement have simply stopped giving credence to alarms. One of the more notable examples of this came six years ago in Sandy Springs, Ga., which in 2019 amended its alarm ordinance to require alarm monitoring companies to provide “true verification” through audio, video or in-person verification, and prior to calling the police and attempting a dispatch.

Sandy Springs argued that the security business “is an industry that anchors its business model on the use of taxpayer-funded public services” and, therefore, the industry – not the municipality – should bear the burden of the high false alarm rate.

While some of the measures adopted in Sandy Springs were harsh and damaging to the industry and local citizens, the alarm ordinance adopted in that municipality has generally withstood judicial challenges.

Sandy Springs is just one city, but it was a wake-up call. Some alarm companies embraced the lesson of Sandy Springs and realized that without the cooperation of law enforcement, the traditional business model of the security industry will crumble.

Technology Evolution

This realization, together with advances in technology, has eased the unhappy relationship between private security and law enforcement.

Faster and more robust networks, the proliferation and availability of higher resolution cameras, enhanced listening systems, ubiquitous smart phone usage, increased self-monitoring of alarms, private guard response and artificial intelligence initiatives have helped make alarms more verifiable. In turn, this helps protect against and respond better and more effectively to crime.

These technological developments greatly improve the likelihood of a verified response – an approach demanded by Sandy Springs and an increasing number of municipalities. This trend has emerged as an innovative and effective approach to enhance public safety, conserve police resources, and improve overall system reliability.

By fostering a strong partnership between law enforcement and the private security industry, verified response is changing the way alarm calls are prioritized and handled – to the benefit of all.

The days of traditional alarm responses, where police are dispatched based on unverified signals, are gone. If the police respond at all to an unverified residential alarm signal, it may be treated as a low priority.

Of course, this is not helpful for a real emergency – a reality that customers need to know, lest they be fooled that a traditional security system has the same efficacy as one that can better verify the emergency. Still, there are tons of alarm companies playing by the old rules, relying on law enforcement to respond to unverified or unverifiable signals.

This model cannot continue, because it is operationally ineffective, risks public safety, and sets the stage for lawsuits claiming the service promised was not the service offered. This risk of possible class actions or other consumer protection claims will be explored in future columns.