CITY'S ALARM RULING DUE POLICY OF IGNORING BURGLAR CALLS FACES VETO THREAT.

Byline: Mariel Garza Staff Writer

Despite a public outcry from frightened residents, the City Council is poised today to accept some version of the Los Angeles Police Department's new policy to not respond to most calls from the city's private and commercial burglar alarms.

Although they could not agree after hours of debate whether to recommend dumping the Police Commission's new policy, council members at a joint meeting of the Public Safety Committee and the Education and Neighborhoods Committee agreed Monday that the current policy of automatic response to burglar calls wastes officers' time.

``The tenor of everyone here today is: In 90 days, we're going to implement a new policy,'' said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the Public Safety Committee. ``Now, how modified or watered down that policy will be or how different it will be'' from the one adopted by the Police Commission remains unclear, she said.

The commission voted unanimously Jan. 7 to ban officers from responding to calls from tripped burglar alarms unless a person verifies it is a real emergency.

But that decision set off a public outcry - including complaints from members of the city's new neighborhood councils who said they should have been consulted. The council voted two weeks ago to assert jurisdiction in the matter and consider vetoing the new policy.

But the sticking point for council members Monday was whether to exercise their only option under the City Charter - vetoing the policy. The alternative is to ask the commission for a delayed implementation date.

Either way, the council members said they also would set up a working group of police officials and alarm industry representatives to tinker with the policy.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who led the drive to reject the policy endorsed by the city's new police chief and her brother Mayor James Hahn, urged her colleagues to support vetoing the response policy because otherwise the Police Department doesn't have to accept recommendations from the council's working group - or put off acting on the policy.

``We can either believe that they may delay the implementation or we can take it in our own hands, veto the decision and then we know they will delay implementation,'' she said.

The council only has a week to decide whether to veto the commission's vote and send it back. And even if the council takes that step, the commission can vote to readopt the policy.

Despite the council members' indecision Monday, police officials remain adamant that the commission's policy is best for getting the most crime-fighting action out of the LAPD.

``This really comes down to a decision about where do I put my resources,'' said Police Chief William Bratton, who bristled at the council's challenge to the policy. ``Do I put my officers chasing the burglary fairy, when consistently over the past five years 92 percent of those calls are false. Or do I put them chasing the crime in this city - the murders, the rapes, the robberies?''

In 2001, the LAPD logged 123,254 calls originating from burglar alarms, and 97 percent of those were false alarms. Only one person was arrested as a result of all those calls, city officials said.

Also, LAPD officials cited burglar alarm calls in the period from 6 p.m. Thursday through 6 a.m. Monday, when officers responded to 884 alarm calls, 866 of which were false. During the same period, 22 people in the city were shot and eight were murdered.

Other figures released by police officials showed that the areas of the city that have the highest percentage of burglar-alarm calls in December - the San Fernando Valley and West Los Angeles - had comparatively fewer violent crimes.

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

DECEMBER BURGLAR ALARM CALLS

SOURCE: Los Angeles Police Department