WILL POLICE TURN DEAF EAR TO ALARMS?

Byline: Mariel Garza Staff Writer

Los Angeles police officers would ignore most private residential and business burglar alarms under a plan to be considered Tuesday - a policy many say would put Angelenos at risk of being victimized.

The Police Commission is set to adopt a policy to halt automatic police response to most alarm calls unless a human being verifies that there is evidence of a break-in. The Los Angeles Police Department responds to about 136,000 burglar alarm calls a year - more than 90 percent of them false alarms.

``Right now in the city, we lose 15 percent of the patrol time for responding to false alarms,'' said Joe Gunn, executive director of the Police Commission. This change would allow the city to make better use of those officers, he said.

Currently, if an alarm is tripped, it sends a signal to a private alarm company, which tries to contact the resident or business operator. If that person can't be reached, the company assumes it's an emergency and calls the police, who treat the call with the lowest priority.

But under the new policy, officers won't roll to an alarm call at all unless a third party - such as a private security officer, a neighbor, the homeowner or business operator - can verify that something is amiss.

``In this time of critical shortage of police officers with violent crime on the rise, we have to really look at the most important things police officers should be doing,'' said City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the council's Public Safety Committee.

Responding to false alarms is not the best use of officers' time, she said.

The policy does include some exemptions.

Banks, the approximately 30 gun dealers in the city and government buildings would still get automatic police response. And robbery and panic alarms, which are tripped by a person in trouble, would still elicit a police response.

Alarm companies, residents and businesses criticize the plan as putting citizens and companies at risk, and essentially putting out a welcome mat for criminals.

``The only way burglars ever get caught in this country are with alarm systems. They never get caught in another way,'' said George Gunning of Canoga Park, co-owner of USA Alarm Systems Inc. and a founding member of the Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association.

Gunning argues that a nonresponse policy would ``open up the doors to every petty burglar in the Western United States to come here and clean out any house.''

The new policy would put the burden of a first response on the private companies, which they are not happy about.

In a letter to the commission Friday, GLASAA asked for a delay in adopting the policy and for the commission to create a working group, including GLASAA, which would come up with a different plan.

In particular, alarm companies propose an alternative that would require alarm companies to improve telephone verification, give the LAPD updated lists of alarm users, and take other steps they predict would reduce false alarms.

``If the Police Commission moves forward with a nonresponse policy, it is telling Los Angeles' residential and commercial alarm owners that their alarms are worthless and that the department would rather pursue a draconian 'solution' to a problem caused by a small number of habitual abusers rather than work with the alarm industry to find a common-sense, effective solution,'' the letter said.

GLASAA also pointed out that according to LAPD data, false-alarm fees bring in more than $2.4 million each year to city coffers and alarm-permit fees bring in $3.1 million. The city could bring in millions more if it enforced the requirement that alarm users pay for an annual $31 alarm permit. As many as 160,000 people and businesses with alarms don't have permits, officials said.

But the money isn't a concern in this case, said Police Commission President Rick Caruso.

``The concern now is that there's a lot of resources being used to respond to calls from false alarms,'' Caruso said. Changing the policy would free up about $11 million in police resources.

Besides, the fees and fines collected go into the city's general fund, and are not necessarily disbursed to the LAPD, Caruso said.

Claims that the proposed policy change will result in more quality patrol time by police officers ring false to Tony Lucente, president of the Studio City Residents Association.

``Unfortunately, this (responding to false alarms) is sometimes the only way the officers get into the neighborhoods, speaking from personal experience,'' Lucente said. ``It's not the best way, but it is one way to get patrol cars in your neighborhood.''

GLASAA also argues that the policy change would hurt those least able to afford it - small-business people and residents, who would drop their alarm service rather than pay more for a private security force.

``What am I paying for?'' said Mike Gruner, owner of Green Jug Fine Wine and Spirits in Woodland Hills. He pays the yearly alarm-permit fee and figures it and his taxes should fund reasonable police services.

``I might as well hire a private company and tell (the police) to take a hike,'' Gruner said.

That's essentially what business owners and homeowners with alarms will have to do if they want the same level of service under the new policy, Gunning said.

The proposed policy seems like just another ratcheting down of services in a city already doing a bad job, said Bill Powers, chairman of the United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley.

``Basically, you have a group of businesses who are already receiving very limited protection, especially in the Valley, because of the shortage of police officers,'' Powers said. ``Rather than increase the staff, they decrease coverage so businesses won't have the protection they need.''

The department is making strides in filling some of the more than 1,000 open police-officer positions. Academy classes are full and officers are leaving the department in fewer numbers than in recent years. But police officials say it will take a while longer before the department is up to its authorized strength of more than 10,000 officers.

Caruso said adoption of the policy Tuesday isn't a forgone conclusion and that he is open to exploring a ``happy medium.''

Meanwhile, residents like Ellen Bagelman of Lake Balboa will feel a little uneasy about how a change in police response might play out.

``I acknowledge they're in a bind,'' said Bagelman, a police officer's widow. ``My fear is that one call that can't be verified will be a true robbery or burglary in progress and, yikes, the guy gets away with it.''

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

NO CAUSE FOR ALARM

SOURCE: City of Los Angeles