                  FALSE ALARMS: CAUSE FOR ALARM

                               By

                         John J. Moslow
                             Captain
                    Police Alarm Coordinator
              Amherst, New York, Police Department


     Today's police officers respond to approximately 13.7
million emergency alarm calls nationwide each year. Ninety-eight
percent of those calls are unnecessary for one reason or another.
To some, these numbers may appear relatively benign when compared
to other crime statistics of concern to the public and law
enforcement.

     In reality, however, false alarms present a serious threat
to the effectiveness of police departments and to the safety of
the communities they serve. Ironically, this threat stems from
the desire of many citizens and businesses to protect themselves
better from crime. While media reports focus on increases in
violent crime, the rate of property crime has risen even more
dramatically, from 1,726 per 100,000 citizens in 1960 to 4,903
per 100,000 in 1992. (1)

     One direct result of this up-surge in property crime has
been an explosion in the number of monitored alarm systems. It is
projected that by the end of 1995, police departments will be
responding to a staggering 40 million emergency alarm calls. (2)
Unless communities take action to bring the number of false
alarms under control, police officers soon may find themselves
devoting much of their time responding to false alarm calls, or
in effect, working for private security companies.

     The larger threat, however, is to the citizens who have
become so fearful of crime. As police resources become strained
beyond capacity, the safety of all citizens is unduly jeopardized
by the rising number of false alarms.

LOCAL FALSE ALARM ORDINANCES

     To address the problem, many municipalities have taken the
initiative and enacted false alarm ordinances. Are these
ordinances effective in reducing the number of false alarm calls?
Are they cost-effective and worth the effort?  Most important, do
they ultimately enhance or diminish citizen safety?  Because the
ordinances reflect a variety of approaches and differ
considerably in scope and effectiveness, police executives should
be familiar with the range of false alarm ordinances enacted.

Case Study: Amherst, New York 

     The town of Amherst, located in western New York,
implemented an "avoidable alarm ordinance" in 1993. Amherst is
one of the most affluent and fastest-growing communities in the
region. The construction of upscale residential subdivisions and
a boom in commercial retail development coincided with an
increase in demand for police service.

     The Amherst Police Department, comprised of 147 sworn
officers, responds to an average of 50,000 calls for service
annually. Statistics verify that a growing number of these calls
results from the triggering of private alarms. Responses to alarm
calls increased from 15 percent of the total number of calls for
service in 1988 to 18 percent in 1992.

     The town organized an alarm ordinance committee to address
the issue of false alarms. The "avoidable alarm ordinance" became
effective on January 1, 1993. This ordinance specifies no charge
for the first five false alarms, a $25 charge for the sixth and
seventh, and a $50 fine for every false alarm thereafter.

     By April 1, 1993, the police department designed and
integrated an alarm notification and billing program into its
existing computer-aided dispatch and records management systems.
The program required a minimal number of clerical staff hours for
managing the statistical data and billing. Still, it proved very
successful: From April through December 1993, the ordinance
generated nearly $19,000 in fines.

     More important, these measures reduced the number of false
alarms. During the last 9 months of 1993, the number of false
alarms fell by 223 when compared to the same period in 1992.
Although the reduction may appear rather modest (six fewer alarms
per week), the ordinance succeeded in curtailing the upward trend
of false alarms and effected a decrease in calls, even as the
number of new alarm installations continued to grow.

Other Municipalities

     The measures adopted by the town of Amherst, while
effective, are considerably less stringent than those of other
municipalities. The range of ordinance provisions demonstrates
how municipalities can design measures to address specific
conditions. For example, the Boston, Massachusetts, Police
Department responds to approximately 40,000 burglar alarm calls
annually, 99.5 percent of which are false. Boston residents now
face a $50 fine for a third false alarm, $100 for a fourth, and
$200 for all subsequent false alarms. (3)

     The ordinance enacted by the City of Savannah, unlike those
in Amherst or Boston, targets only commercial properties. The
escalating fee schedule allows for five false alarms prior to
triggering a $90 fine for the sixth. Fines then increase from $90
to as much as $750 for the most flagrant violators. However, the
ordinance allows business owners to undertake corrective measures
within 72 hours of the avoidable alarm, whereby the police
department will not assess the fee. (4)

USER PERMITS

     False alarm ordinances represent only one way municipalities
can address unnecessary alarm calls. To regulate and control
flagrant abusers, as well as the types of alarm systems installed 
throughout the community, many municipalities require an "alarm
user permit."  A permit application process allows the
municipality's governing agency to ensure that an applicant's
alarm system satisfies a set of predetermined requirements and
specifications. Such specifications may require that all alarms
installed within a municipality possess an automatic cutoff
feature that disables the audible alarm after a 10-minute period.
To reduce the strain on police and emergency resources, a permit
procedure also may deny approval of any system with an automatic
dialer feature connected directly to the enhanced 911 system.

     Permits can be subject to suspension or revocation depending
on the number of avoidable or false alarms received from a
particular address. Or, the police department may assign a lower
priority for discretionary response to such locations. Winnipeg,
Ontario, and Nassau County, New York, are among several North
American municipalities that currently employ or plan to
implement a user permit system.

Winnipeg, Ontario

     Before installing new alarm systems, residents and
businesses in Winnipeg must submit alarm permit applications to
the police department. The applicants then are assigned a permit
number and issued a decal that must be displayed on the premises
in a location readily visible to patrols. If the site generates
three or more false alarms within a 6-month period, or if the
keyholder refuses to attend an alarm call, the police department
can suspend the permit for a period of 6 months. The city
attributes a more than 28-percent decrease in false alarms to
this by-law. (5)

Nassau County, New York

     The Nassau County Police Department currently receives more
than 100,000 alarm transmissions annually; fewer than one percent
indicate actual emergencies. Although the department repeatedly
had warned, cited, and even fined alarm owners, the number of
violations did not decrease significantly. As a result, Nassau
County proposed an "automatic alarm permit system" to target
alarm abusers.

     The proposed plan would require all alarm users to register  
with the police department and to pay a prescribed fee for a
permit, which could be suspended or revoked contingent on whether
false alarms persisted. In addition to enhancing the overall
safety of the community, county administrators project that such
a program could generate $1 million the first year and $400,000
in subsequent years. (6)

ALARM VERIFICATION 

     Some municipalities have taken the next step beyond an alarm
permit system and now require some form of verification prior to
responding to alarm calls. In Canada, two large police
departments now require businesses to provide them with
additional proof of a possible burglary before they respond to an
alarm.

Toronto, Ontario

     The Metropolitan Toronto Police Department responded to
131,000 alarms in 1988. False alarms constituted 98 percent of
this figure, with an estimated cost to the police of $130 per
call. In response to this drain on police resources, Toronto
adopted a policy whereby the police department could suspend
response for 1 year to a location generating four unnecessary
alarms within a 365-day period. This strategy resulted in an
immediate 4-percent reduction during a brief testing period. More
significant, however, was a reduction of more than 20 percent
when the alarm verification phase was implemented. (7)

Edmonton, Alberta

     The Edmonton Police Department no longer responds to
"one-hit" alarms. If an alarm is triggered, the police wait for
verification that another alarm, such as a motion detector, has
been tripped from inside before responding. Officers also look
for suspicious activity or signs, such as footprints, near a door
or window.

     While the Edmonton policy has reduced the number of false
alarms, it also has been criticized as too restrictive by the
Canadian Alarm and Security Association, which labeled it a "back
door approach to create a nonresponse policy."  The police
commission has agreed to study the policy and the alarm
association's concerns.

CONSIDERATIONS

     Any proposed alarm legislation must be well thought out and
researched. To ensure an effective and equitable approach,
administrators should come to detailed, comprehensive answers to
a series of questions through debate and research:

     --   What constitutes a false alarm, or put another way,
          what is the definition of an avoidable alarm as opposed
          to an unavoidable or excusable one?

     --   How many false alarms will be permitted before service
          is suspended or a fee is assessed?

     --   Will the fee increase with excessive misuse?

     --   What government agency will collect the fees and what
          sanctions will be placed against alarm owners should
          they neglect to remit the fee imposed?

     --   What policy and procedure will be established for
          administrative review enabling property owners to
          challenge a false alarm charge?

     --   If service is suspended or a permit revoked, under what
          conditions can service be restored or a permit be
          reinstated?

Defining an Avoidable Alarm

     Perhaps the cornerstone of any legislation is the definition 
of an avoidable alarm. The Town of Amherst defines this as 
"...the activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure,
malfunction, improper installation, or the negligence of the
owner, user, custodian, or lessee of an alarm system, or of his
employees requiring an emergency response, when in fact an
emergency does not exist."  The definition also includes
"intentional activation of an alarm when the activator knows an
emergency does not exist." (8)

     The classification of false alarms should not include alarms
activated by violent acts of nature or similar causes beyond the
control of the user or owner of the alarm system. Nor should it
include circumstances in which the activator reasonably believed
that an emergency situation existed.

Community Education and Support

     Most false alarms result from user error or negligence.
Therefore, it is vital for alarm vendors, the police, and local
governing bodies to enhance community awareness and understanding
of the false alarm problem. As many municipal governments have
found, the local news media can be a highly effective means to
communicate with the public and to solicit support. The community
must embrace the intended purpose of any alarm statute as a way
to promote the safety and general welfare of all residents by
reducing the number of unnecessary emergency responses.

     To engender the public perception of fair play, any statute
should include a provision for issuing warning notices to alarm
owners, as well as a grace period prior to the assessment of any
penalty fee. Should the public view the alarm statute as "another
revenue-making scheme," residents may begin asking, "Why do we
pay taxes?"

     Not only could the statute prove unpopular but the police
also could suffer widespread loss of community support. Because
of the reasoned implementation of Amherst's "avoidable alarm
ordinance," as well as a proactive public information effort on
the part of the police department, the majority of residents now
understand the need for and support the ordinance.

Police Effectiveness

     Police executives should not underestimate the many factors
that surround this issue. Even in communities that have yet to
experience any overt problem directly related to the excessive
triggering of avoidable alarms, the indirect effects may already
have been felt.

     Repeated response to false alarms breeds a sense of
complacency among officers that can lead to a potentially
dangerous situation should an alarm call prove to be legitimate.
At the same time, police executives and municipal leaders must
also consider the financial ramifications of a civil lawsuit
should a tragedy occur due to a delayed police response to
another false alarm call.

     For police executives faced with streamlining operations,
false alarm statutes can reduce the number of false alarms. These
statutes also enhance the safety of officers and citizens alike,
improve officer morale, increase the number of police units
available for legitimate calls and preventive patrol, and produce
revenue at the expense of those who abuse community resources.

CONCLUSION

     False alarms represent a disruptive and potentially
dangerous drain on police resources. It is a problem that has
grown as the public's fear of crime has increased. However,
municipalities have an array of regulatory options available to
them to address this issue.

     By enacting such measures as false alarm ordinances, alarm
user permits, and alarm verification regulations, municipalities
can, at the very least, curb an upward spiral of false alarm
calls. At best, these approaches can enhance community safety
while freeing more officers to respond to those citizens who
truly need their assistance.


ENDNOTES

     (1)  "Violence in America," U.S. News and World Report, 17
January 1994, 23-33.

     (2)  Lee A. Jones, "The Alarm Industry: Friend or Foe to
Police Officers?" The Police Chief, August 1991, 24-25.

     (3)  Corporate Security Digest, February 1, 1993, 4-5.

     (4)  Savannah Department of Police, "Article N. Police
Administrative Fees," Section 3. Flagrant violators are
classified as those properties generating 51 or more false
alarms.

     (5)  National Executive Institute Report, "Ideas for Cost
Reduction/Increased Productivity in Law Enforcement Operations,"
Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 1991.

     (6)  Ibid.

     (7)  Ibid.

     (8)  Town of Amherst, Erie County, New York, Local Law
12-1992.
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
 Another file downloaded from:                                NIRVANAnet(tm)

 &TOTSE                510/935-5845   Walnut Creek, CA         Taipan Enigma
 Burn This Flag        408/363-9766       San Jose, CA                Zardoz
 realitycheck          415/666-0339  San Francisco, CA    Poindexter Fortran
 Governed Anarchy      510/226-6656        Fremont, CA             Eightball
 New Dork Sublime      805/823-1346      Tehachapi, CA               Biffnix
 Lies Unlimited        801/278-2699 Salt Lake City, UT            Mick Freen
 Atomic Books          410/669-4179      Baltimore, MD               Baywolf
 Sea of Noise          203/886-1441        Norwich, CT             Mr. Noise
 The Dojo              713/997-6351       Pearland, TX               Yojimbo
 Frayed Ends of Sanity 503/965-6747     Cloverdale, OR              Flatline
 The Ether Room        510/228-1146       Martinez, CA Tiny Little Super Guy
 Hacker Heaven         860/456-9266        Lebanon, CT         The Visionary
 The Shaven Yak        510/672-6570        Clayton, CA             Magic Man
 El Observador         408/372-9054        Salinas, CA         El Observador
 Cool Beans!           415/648-7865  San Francisco, CA        G.A. Ellsworth
 DUSK Til Dawn         604/746-5383   Cowichan Bay, BC         Cyber Trollis
 The Great Abyss       510/482-5813        Oakland, CA             Keymaster

                          "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
