BOGUS FALSE ALARM POLICY? LAPD STILL ANSWERING NEARLY ALL CALLS; HARSHER PENALTIES NOT YET ENACTED.

Byline: James Nash Staff Writer

Despite a promised crackdown, Los Angeles police still respond to virtually all burglar alarm calls - even repeated false alarms from the same location - and stiffer penalties on abusers have not been enacted, officials acknowledged Thursday.

Of the 11,821 burglar alarm calls the Los Angeles Police Department recorded in January, police responded to all but 27 although a newly enacted policy was supposed to free officers from such largely useless duty so they could spend more time on patrol. Police said 96.7 percent of the calls were false alarms.

In the first five weeks of the year, 353 addresses had three or more false alarms and 1,163 had two or more false alarms, according to data released by the Los Angeles Police Commission.

Any address that had two false alarms in a year was supposed to be put on a no-response list but no action has been taken. Also, the City Council never acted on a major increase in penalties that was supposed to be imposed as part of a deal to stop LAPD efforts to halt responding to all burglar alarm calls unless they were verified in person.

``What good is a policy if you're not going to live within it?'' asked Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association. ``It looks like once again the city is quick to pass policies but slow in enforcement.''

Mayor James Hahn took heart that the total number of burglar alarm calls are down because security firms are canceling more of them before officers get to the scene. Police Chief William Bratton, however, remains convinced that the LAPD should stop responding to all unverified alarms.

``His position is the same as it's always been - he wants to get out of the business of answering alarms,'' Bratton spokeswoman Mary Grady said. ``At this point we're still in the business of answering alarms, which is contrary to what the chief wants.''

The police chief believes that a month's worth of data isn't enough to judge whether officers now have more time to patrol Los Angeles streets rather than respond to false alarms, Grady added.

Other police officials said the number of calls that received no response under the new policy could be higher than the official figure of 27 because dispatch computers are being reprogrammed to conform with the new policy.

And the new policy - enacted Jan. 1 after months of debate - is still too young to draw conclusions from the January data.

``We're still working on it and we're still trying to fine-tune it,'' said Lt. Debra Kirk. ``This is something we've never had before.''

The total number of alarm calls was down dramatically in January. The 11,821 calls recorded last month compares with 15,012 in January 2003, the Police Commission reported.

Kirk, the commission's liaison on the burglar alarm policy, said she isn't sure what caused the decrease, although she said alarm owners might have taken steps to prevent false alarms.

Kirk said false alarms are likely to decrease after the Los Angeles City Council adopts new fines that would kick in at the first false alarm. Currently, the city fines residents and businesses $80 upon the third false alarm in a year.

``That might be the missing link in all of this - a really strong ordinance,'' Kirk said.

A new ordinance with penalties for first-time violators and stiffer fines for people who don't have alarm permits is scheduled to go before the City Council next month, said Adena Tessler, legislative deputy to Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the council's Public Safety Committee.

A draft of the alarm policy spelled out a fine of $95 for the first false alarm and an escalating penalty for other false alarms, although Tessler couldn't say whether the final ordinance would have the same penalty. Some alarm company owners said little will change until the new fines are put into effect.

``I don't think that legally there's anything they can do until there's a new ordinance written,'' said George Gunning, president of the Greater Los Angeles Alarm Association.

City Councilman Dennis Zine, a reserve police officer and member of the Public Safety Committee, agreed.

``Once we fully implement this and start charging for alarms that are false, then you're going to start seeing a real difference,'' Zine said. ``Right now we're firing on two cylinders when we should be firing on all eight.''

The policy of cutting off police response after two false alarms in a year was brokered by the mayor after a long debate among police, alarm company owners and residents.

Bratton argued that more than 90 percent of alarm calls are false and waste police officers' time. But many alarm owners and residents, especially in the San Fernando Valley, said a policy of not responding to unverified alarms would encourage more break-ins in Los Angeles.

On Thursday, Hahn and other supporters of the new policy pointed to the relatively large proportion of alarm calls canceled by alarm companies before police are dispatched. Companies canceled 35.3 percent of the total alarms in January before police were dispatched, according to police commission data, although there was no comparable number for 2003.

Hahn spokeswoman Shannon Murphy pointed to the dramatic decrease in total alarm calls in January compared with the previous January.

``Mayor Hahn is encouraged that since the policy went into effect, there's been a 22 percent decrease in the number of alarm calls,'' Murphy said.

James Nash, [phone]

james.nash(at)dailynews.com