'Toothless' state law hinders L.A. efforts to increase safety at ATMs.

Despite increasing concern about violence at Los Angeles-area automated teller machines, any attempts by L.A. County or local city governments to create a safer environment at ATMs will be futile because such local laws would be superseded by a little-known state law which carries no penalties for noncompliance.

The City of Los Angeles is one local municipality that has been looking at ways to increase safety at ATMs. Earlier this month, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously in favor of studying the feasibility of putting ATMs in police stations. But that proposal would not affect financial institutions, so it would not conflict with existing state law.

The state law, passed in September 1990 and drafted with significant input from the banking industry, lists a number of things financial institutions must do to improve safety at ATMs. But it also includes a provision that preempts the authority of cities and counties to regulate safety at ATMs.

Specifically, the law states that ATM operators must have adopted procedures for evaluating the safety of existing ATMs on or before July 1991. This includes evaluating how bushes and landscaping obscure an ATM from public view and the level of crime in the neighborhood. The law also requires that all ATM customers must have been notified of basic safety precautions on or before Dec. 31, 1991. New customers must be sent the information when they receive their ATM cards, or before then.

Another provision of the state law is that ATM operators bring existing ATMs into compliance with statewide lighting standards by July 1, 1993. Those standards specify a certain minimum "candlefoot power" of light that must be used to illuminate ATMs and adjacent parking areas.

The law, known as AB 244, was sponsored by California Sen. Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, who was an assemblyman at the time.

Critics of the state law charge that the bill is toothless because there are no penalties for noncompliance, but proponents of the bill point out that if the financial institutions do not comply with the law, they could be held liable in an ATM robbery.

"The penalty is the industry standard for liability," said Bill Wipprecht, chairman of the Security Committee for the California Bankers Association. "If banks don't comply, it will be held against them in a court of law."

Although no penalties for noncompliance are specifically addressed in the state bill, Mike Burns, Sen. Calderon's chief of staff, said penalties for noncompliance may be covered under a section in the state financial code pertaining to unsafe and injurious banking practices.

That statute gives the state superintendent of banking the authority to suspend or remove officers of any bank not complying with state laws.

Technically, local law enforcement agencies, not state agencies, are required to enforce the safety law because ATM robberies are considered street crimes.

But officials from both the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department told the Business Journal they knew nothing about the state's ATM-safety law.

Said Fidel Gonzales, a deputy sheriff: "How can we do anything about a law we don't know anything about?"

Sgt. Ray Hernandez, a detective with the robbery/homicide division of the LAPD, said, as far as he knew, the Federal Bureau of Investigation should be handling enforcement of the law, then he added: "There's far bigger fish to fry."

Wipprecht acknowledges that most law-enforcement agencies consider AB 244 a self-policing measure by the banking industry and the most they can do is to measure the candlefoot power of lighting at ATMs.

It's not only the law enforcement agencies that haven't heard of the law, but officials at many lending institutions are in the dark as well, said Bruce Ramm, a member of the California Crime Prevention Officers Association, a group of some 400 crime and security officers who share ideas and training on crime prevention techniques.

Ramm said he has talked to numerous bank branch officers who said they have never heard of the state law.

Both the California Bankers Association and the California League of Savings Institutions stated that their members have been notified of the legislation.

So far, Ramm said the only police department he knows of that is taking a proactive stance about ATM safety is the Santa Ana Police Department.

Said Lt. Robert Helton, executive officer to Santa Ana's chief of police: "We felt there was a good chance that businesses would not be aware of this law, so we took the initiative in notifying them." He said his department sent notices to 60-plus lending institutions in both January and April 1993, reminding them of the July 1, 1993 deadline for the stronger lighting standards.

As it turns out, he said, "several lending institutions called us and said they never heard of Assembly Bill 244."

Mike McCoy, a police service officer with the Santa Ana Police Department, said his department specifically required the banks to set up an appointment to have their lighting tested by the police. He said, so far, the department has received calls from 75 percent of the financial institutions. As for the other 25 percent, McCoy said the department is planning to make an on-site inspection. For financial institutions not in compliance, McCoy said the department will cite them for being in violation of the financial code and could ultimately take them to court.

To many in the finance and law enforcement industries, the whole issue of ATM-related crimes is being blown out of proportion by the media. LAPD Sgt. Hernandez said over any three-month period, there are about 1,000 robberies and, at the most, only 60 of those are ATM robberies.

The L.A. Police Department, which has been tracking the number of ATM robberies in the city since September 1992, said ATM robberies average about 15 to 20 per month.

Officials at the sheriff's department said they do not keep track of ATM crimes separately from other types of robberies.