False Alarm Perspectives

Section 3: Local Ordinances

Regardless of whether they are in fact the most effective solution, local ordinances are among the most visible of the many means of controlling false alarms. The specifics of alarm ordinances vary, but they typically provide for alarm system registration, a certain number of "free" false alarms, fines (often ascending) for excessive false alarms, and sometimes a point at which police may elect not to respond to calls from a particular system.

Not presuming to say which provisions would be most effective for a specific city, this section instead presents three case studies that examine the degree of success of ordinances in three particular cities. (Two of the ordinances are presented in this report's appendix.) The section then summarizes the elements of 30 cities' false alarm ordinances, presenting comments as they were received from police department spokespersons, and lists points of contact for anyone wishing to obtain a copy of or learn more about the ordinances summarized.

In addition to sample ordinances employed by various municipalities, model ordinances have been written by such groups as NBFAA, IACP, and CANASA:

• NBFAA's ordinance ("Model Security Alarm Ordinance") is available through NBFAA headquarters in Bethesda, Md.
• IACP's ordinance ("Model Burglar and Holdup Alarm Systems Ordinance"), written 20 years ago, is primarily interesting as a historical document. It provides for alarm business licensing, identification cards for alarm business employees, installations' compliance with national standards, inspection of installations and alarm business premises, collection of alarm statistics, alarm user permits, and revocation of alarm user permits after four false alarms in a calendar year.
• CANASA's ordinance is reprinted in the appendix of this report.

Case Studies

1. Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon
   

   Portland's first false alarm control ordinance was developed in 1975. Having topped 5,000 alarms in one year, the cities in Multnomah County, the county where Portland is located, decided to enact similar ordinances that the sheriffs office would administer centrally. The ordinances required alarm owners to obtain permits, and at certain intervals they levied fines against owners who had multiple false alarms. (At the fourth false alarm in a year, a $40 fine was levied; at the eighth, $100; at the twelfth, $180). The ordinances did not call for any notification of an owner when the police responded to a false alarm, so many owners were not aware of their false alarms until fine notices were received. The rate of false alarms continued to increase steadily.

   The number of alarms reached a peak in 1989, at 34,848. At that point, the ordinances was updated, and the fine at four false alarms increased to $50, with false alarms five through nine free. At 10 false alarms, the fine was $100 for each false alarm. This brought about a slight decline in the number of false alarms in 1989, the first year that the number of false alarms did not increase at the same rate as the number of permits.

   But this slight decrease did not satisfy Portland. In 1990 and 1991, a mayor's committee met to address the alarm issue. The committee's report called for the appointment of an alarm outreach officer, whose duty it was to notify alarm users of the problem of false alarms and to administer the ordinance. The officer's efforts were to be financed by an increase in the permit fee. The report also called for a tougher stance on fines, beginning fines on the second false alarm. On the sixth false alarm, the committee recommended suspension of police response.

   The Multnomah County Alarm Task Force sent each city in the county an ordinance that implemented the recommendations. The Portland Police Bureau appointed an alarm outreach officer in 1990 and passed a new, tougher, ordinance, using the committee's recommendations, in 1991.

   The alarm outreach program used numerous methods to make the public aware of the false alarm problem and attempted to reduce false alarms at the user's level. Being mainly caused by user error and equipment malfunction, many false alarms could be eliminated through education and community awareness.The outreach officer mailed brochures to all new alarm users, along with an eight-minute video (Target Zero: Preventing False Alarms) detailing false alarm reduction methods. Also made available were brochures on selecting the right system for a prospective buyer's needs. Officers were required to attach a FANS (false alarm notification sticker) on the front door of the premises where they had responded to a false alarm. After police began to use the stickers, the number of false alarms decreased 20 percent.

   The increase in public awareness, along with stiffer penalties, drastically reduced the number of false alarms. From 1989 to 1990, false alarms decreased from 34,848 to 32,572. In 1991, they decreased to 24,692, and in 1992 the numberof false alarms was 21,401. These decreases came even though the number of permits had increased from 32,502 in 1989 to 36,663 in 1992. Since 1988 there has been a 26 percent increase in the number of permits but a 36 percent decrease in the number of false alarms. Portland's approach shows the remarkable effect of a strict law combined with an active public awareness campaign.

   CONTACT: Alarm Information Officer Robert F. Tilley, (503) 823-0487.

2. Uwchlan Township, Pennsylvania
   

   In 1984, due to the increase in false alarms over the preceding few years, the Uwchlan Township Police Department began to leave an alarm card at the site of every false alarm to which it responded. This notification card stated the date, time, and reason for the activation. One copy of the card was left at the site of the alarm, and one was mailed to the alarm dealer. The card was to notify those who were having false alarms of the problem and to show the alarm companies which systems were the most effective and which were the least reliable. This simple notification brought about a decrease in false alarms in the township. From 790 in 1983, the number decreased to 746 in 1984, to a low of 469 total alarm calls (false and actual) in 1987. Meanwhile, it is estimated, the number of alarm users was increasing at a rate of about 10 percent a year.

   In 1988, the township enacted an ordinance designed to keep track of false alarms and administer fees to multiple offenders. Interestingly, 1989 and 1990 saw the first increases in five years in the number of alarm calls. In 1989 the increase was attributed to one alarm user with an inordinate number of alarms. In 1990, despite a 19 percent increase in the number of alarm users, the number of false alarms rose only 10 percent. The township was happy with this slight increase, and the number of false alarms began to decline again in 1991, to 598. Even with the increases in the number of alarm users since 1984, when the notification program was started, the number of false alarms has never returned to its peak level of 746.

   Uwchlan Township's ordinance is unique in the high number of alarms allowed before a fine is incurred. The township allows two false activations a month, with the third and fourth in a month incurring a $50 fine, and any over four incurring a $100 fine. At the end of the month the user starts over again at zero and is allowed two free false activations. This schedule is lenient compared to most ordinances reviewed, but it has been effective. Lieutenant J. Patrick Davis of the Uwchlan Township Police Department says the ordinance is not intended to be a punishment; instead, it is designed to keep alarm systems updated and to make users aware if they are having a false alarm problem.

   This focus on awareness, on letting users know about the problem, not necessarily punishing them, has been very effective. Uwchlan Township has decided to work with the community to stop false alarms through cooperation and awareness. The township still receives false alarms, but their number has become manageable and is expected to continue to decline in the years ahead.

   CONTACT: Lieutenant J. Patrick Davis, (215) 363-6947.

3. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
   

   In 1981 the city of Calgary enacted a by-law (ordinance) to regulate alarm systems. The law required simply that all alarm systems adhere to standards set by the chief of police. In 1984, the law was amended to require that persons monitoring an alarm system call the premises of the alarm if it was set off during business hours, so the police would not be summoned if it was false. The amended by-law also gave the police chief power to revoke an alarm permit if the user violated any part of the by-law. Even so, the number of alarms increased steadily.

   In 1991, the number of false alarms in Calgary reached a high of 16,653. This reflected a continual and steady growth from 11,504 in 1983. Something had to be done. Early in 1992, the police department notified alarm industry representatives that false alarms were "out of control," and the department changed dispatch priority so that any alarm not verified as a crime in progress was treated as a nonemergency call.

   In October 1992, the alarm by-law was amended, becoming much stricter--and much more effective. The chief was now allowed to revoke permits if the alarm system activated excessive false alarms, defined as three or more in a 12-month period. This revocation would last for six months after the last false alarm. In 1992, there was a 23 percent reduction in the number of false dispatches, compared with a 27 percent increase in alarm installations.

   The alarm companies worked with the police department to devise a more formal alarm verification procedure, which the police adopted as policy. During the times when the risk of break-in or criminal activation of the alarm system is lowest (from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm), alarm companies must perform telephone verification before calling the police. This procedure was adopted in March 1993.

   The city of Calgary has continued to see progress. The Calgary police report that the number of false alarms for 1993 is down considerably, with a projected growth in the number of users of about 20 percent.

   The public sector's by-laws and strict fines curbed some of the false alarms, and the cooperation of the alarm companies in developing verification procedures reduced the problem even more.

   Note: Calgary's by-law is based closely on CANASA's model by-law, which is reproduced in the appendix.

   CONTACT: Constable Brian Adams, (403) 268-8399.

Local Ordinances

The following table of local false alarm ordinances reveals a range of ordinance features. The cities are arranged in descending order of population so that readers may quickly learn what has been done in cities similar in size to their own. The number of "free" false alarms allowed per year ranges from one to six, and fines range from zero to $200. In some cities, nonresponse begins when the chief of police decides it will, according to each case; in other cities, police stop responding after the second to eighth false alarm. Comments received about the success of the ordinances range from "very effective" to "not effective."

Among the notable ordinances are those of:
• Phoenix, which provides for fines to be waived if the user takes corrective action
• Seattle, which requires a report of cause for each false alarm
• Las Vegas, which provides no police response to burglar alarms until the need for police has been verified by an eyewitness
• High Point, N.C., which waives fines for false alarms that are proven to be the result of mechanical or electronic malfunction

See Local Ordinances: A Sample.

Ordinance Numbers
Addresses for Copies of and More Information on Alarm Ordinances