Re: Seattle police will no longer respond to alarm calls without 'supporting evidence'

[Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>]

On 9/24/2024 2:59 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> https://www.komonews.com/news/local/seattle-police-no-longer-respond-to-
> alarm-calls-without-supporting-evidence-police-change-video-audio-patrol-
> response-crime-arrest-conserve-resources-officer-washington-spd#
>
> SEATTLE â?? In a letter from interim Seattle Police Chief Sue Rahr, the
> Seattle Police Department (SPD) released a major policy change regarding
> the response to alarm calls.
>
> Starting Oct. 1, SPD will only dispatch officers to calls from alarm
> companies with supporting evidence, such as audio, video, panic alarms, or
> eyewitness evidence that a person is illegally entering or attempting to
> enter a residence or commercial property.
>
> "We will no longer respond to calls from alarm companies based only on
> sensor or motion activations," the letter stated. "With depleted
> resources, we cannot prioritize a patrol response when there is a very low
> probability that criminal activity is taking place."
>
> According to Seattle police, the Seattle 911 Center receives approximately
> 13,000 yearly residential and commercial burglary alarm calls from alarm
> monitoring companies.
>
> The letter said most of those calls are the result of an "unintended
> sensor trip by a homeowner or business employee. Many others are the
> result of old or failing equipment."
>
> According to SPD, of the 13,000 alarm calls in 2023, less than 4% were
> confirmed to have a crime associated with them that resulted in an arrest
> or report being written.
>
> The letter was sent to alarm companies on Sept. 13 advising companies to
> notify customers of this change and that "additional effort may be
> required to work with them on technology upgrades or alternative options.
> "
>
> According to Washington Alarm, the policy changewill impact more than
> 75,000 alarm sites in the community.
>
> "The verified response policy has been tried and rejected numerous times
> including by cities such as Dallas, Texas, and San Jose, California. It
> goes against best practices established through a collaborative effort by
> the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National
> Sheriffâ??s Association," Washington Alarm said.
>
> Our industry supports the police and agrees that they need to conserve
> resources. But there is a better way," said Washington Alarm.
>
> The letter stated the change in SPD's response does not impact the
> licensing and reporting requirements for alarm system monitoring companies
> as defined in Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 6.10.
>
>

Ah-yup.  I wonder if they make people get alarm licenses, and if they do
that would open them up to liability if PD does not respond.

When my local town PD wanted to forced people to get alarm license it
was to gather data so they could fine people for false alarms.  It had
nothing to do with response costs.  I didn't say anything in the
meetings, but I wondered about liability if they failed to respond since
people would feel they were paying for it.

Of course there was a guard service owner there trying to get the
license ordinance passed, and huge fines for false alarms so he could
sell private response service.



--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com