False burglar alarm law in the works

By Erik Sanzenbach
St. Tammany News
Published on Friday, August 8, 2008 9:12 AM CDT



A Slidell City Council member would like to see fewer false burglar alarms in the city and is working on legislation to beef up the current burglar alarm ordinance.

Councilman Lionel Hicks said not only are false alarms a waste of time and manpower for the Slidell Police Department, they are also a nuisance for some residents in his district.

Several months ago, Hicks said he got a call from one of his constituents on Pinetree Street who complained the burglar alarm for a business that abutted his back yard kept going off, waking up the man and his family. After some research, Hicks discovered police had responded to many false alarms at the business.

Further research showed Slidell police officers were responding to a high number of false burglar alarms all over town.

“In the month of July, the police department responded to 450 false alarms,” Hicks said.

A former police officer with 30 years of service, Hicks said false burglar alarms have been a thorn in the side of Slidell police for a long time.

“Every false alarm ties up two units that could be out patrolling the streets,” Hicks said.

Plus, in these days of high gasoline prices, that costs the police department money in extra fuel costs, not to mention wear and tear on vehicles, he said.

“It’s always been a problem,” Slidell Police Department spokesman Capt. Kevin Foltz said.

Recently, Slidell Police Chief Freddie Drennan agreed that something must be done, and he backed Hicks’ plan to beef up the city’s current false burglar alarm law.

In the Slidell Code of Ordinances, under Section 12.1, paragraph e, a person can be fined up to $50 if the police respond to more than six false alarms. A letter of warning is sent to the alarm user if there are one to five false alarms in a calendar year.

Hicks would like to have the ordinance amended to mirror the St. Tammany Parish’s ordinance on false burglar alarms.

The parish ordinance, passed in May 2006, allows only three false alarms before any fines are levied against the alarm user.

Between four and five false alarms, there is a $25 fine, which goes up to $50 for six to seven responses to a false alarm and then $75 for up to nine false alarms.

If a business or residence has 10 or more false alarms, deputies will not respond. The fines and threat of no police response has had an effect.

The number of false alarms has decreased, according to Lt. Fred Escher of the St. Tammany Sheriff’s Office. He has been tracking the false alarms since the ordinance was passed.

“It has made a big difference,” Escher said. “Before the ordinance, we responded to a lot of false alarms, and we found most were due to mechanical errors.”

The Sheriff’s Office sat down with alarm companies to address problematical alarm systems and the companies agreed to fix the problems.

“They were very cooperative, and so were the alarm users. We’ve had great reception,” Escher said. “The ordinance has been a big asset to the Sheriff’s Office.”

He said the parish ordinance is modeled after a similar law in New Orleans.

Hicks said some false alarms are weather-related or due to power blackouts, but he and Foltz said most false alarms are due to operator error. Foltz said most false alarms occur in commercial sites where the employees have not set the alarm properly.

Whatever the reason for the large number of false burglar alarms, Hicks thinks it is time to hold people accountable, allow residents more quiet nights and let the police do a more effective job.

“We just have to put some teeth to our ordinance,” Hicks said.


Comments

8 comment(s)

    C SPARKLE wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:33 AM:

    " This is indeed an interesting discussion. Unfortunately the tax payer is not the focus of concern here. The focus of concern appears to be the police who feel they are wasting time responding to false alarms. I completely agree that it should be the goal of our citizens, and alarm companies to keep false alarms to the bare minimum, but fining a hard working American who is trying to protect his/her bussiness or home is not the answer. Fuel/officer complacency are invalid issues. Safety of our citizens is valid, and I am a citizen, so this is about me. "

    Popeye wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:24 AM:

    " Don't blame the cops, blame the alarm supplier and monitoring firm. Private alarms are private contracts for private services. One of the primary reasons of the monitoring center is to determine the cause of alarm signals, even if it requires a site inspection, before calling the cops. Monitoring firms use the police to make those private site inspections to determine IF an emergency exists, not because of an emergency. That’s why nearly all are false alarms. Monitoring firms, not the alarm site, should be responsible for all fines and fees, no freebies. Fees "

    Interceptor wrote on Aug 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

    " I think that everyone is missing the point. I agree that wear and tear and gas prices are a poor argument, but false alarms are out of control. A false alarm is like crying wolf. You cry wolf too many times, police should not have to respond. SPD responds to an average of 15 false alarms a day. That is ridiculous. Something definitely needs to be done to fix this problem. It's not necessarily the residential alarms that cause problems as much as it is the businesses. Someone needs to be held accountable for this. "

    Sparkle NOT wrote on Aug 14, 2008 4:42 PM:

    " I think what the police have an issue with is mainly the concept of "the boy who cried Wolfe. Officers spend a lot of time answering false alarms. Causing a safety problem for them. They become complacent when aswering these types of calls and could one day be surprised.

    Look at the burglary that happened in slidell where the criminal knew how long it took for the police to arrive and leave. the entire time watching them.

    People you need to get off the defense and just see the whole picture. its not only about you. "

    C SPARKLE wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:42 AM:

    " On the surface I was a little frustrated at the tone of the article. I would think our Law Enforcement Agencies would welcome our citizens placing alarms on our homes. In my opinion the cost of fuel is a poor arugument when deciding to respond to a possible crime in progress. This is a very interesting debate. Perhaps families should arm themselves and stand rotating watches so that we don't have any false alarms. "

    Carol wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:43 PM:

    " I agree that there may be some alarms going off due to operator error it is not always the case. There was trouble on my phone line that caused mine to go off on 2 occasions, luckily I was home to disarm it before police were called out. I have had 2 other occasions that there was a mechanical issues with the system and both times the alarm technician was called out to correct the problem. Why should everyone have to pay for other people's operator error when clearly that is not the case for everyone? "

    PR Davis wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:31 PM:

    " If these false alarms are such a problem with fuel costs and wear and tear, why are Police Officers allowed to use the Police Department's take-home cars however they please? Seems to me that having Slidell Police Cars in New Orleans and Hammond is costing the taxpayers a pretty penny. "

    Robert Lawrence wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:20 PM:

    " The sheriff's office showed up at my house at 6:30 a.m. three times in three months, responding to a 911 call. Everyone in the house was asleep and nobody had made the call. After researching the thing, we found a trojan horse in our computer was dialing the number. The computer identified it as a "system32 error dialing 90112". We got it out and so far all is fine. Who knows how many people are infected with this virus? "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The St. Tammany News is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in thesttammanynews.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the St. Tammany News. The St. Tammany News does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized St. Tammany News spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count: