New Non-Response Policy in California

[SIW Editor]

Fremont is going to a non-response policy very soon:

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=2793&siteSection=312

What can dealers and central station execs do to create community activism against these policies?

[Bill Warnock]

Re: New Non-Response Policy in California

Hello all:
There is no real excuse for nuisance or false alarms.
Every time there is thunderstorm alarm panels light up like Christmas tree decorations. That is a false alarm.
Harry the homeowner unknowingly walks through a protected area. That is a nuisance alarm.
Remember, you get what you pay for. When you have Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) responding to false and nuisance alarms, the LEO may lose his or her edge. That is how they will get killed or seriously injured.
Please read the attachment written in the early 1990's just after retirement.
Enjoy the day,
Bill Warnock

[bdavis]

Re: New Non-Response Policy in California

I revert back to my statement on a similar yet less striking topic.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=73&tstart=0

No reason to panic !!

But thats just my opinion!

[Charger]

While this may seem odd to some, it's not a bad thing for the security industry. Portland, OR and most of it's suburbs have been non-response for quite a while now. Because of that, the security companies in the area that have stepped up to have armed patrol departments have been proving their worth. The patrol agency I used to work for had no less than 12 cars on the road per night, each with an assigned district. When an alarm was activated, they called our dispatch center, who sent us out. If it was false, so be it. If not, we would get a cover unit (or 2, 3, whatever) to set up containment while dispatch notified PD. It works surprisingly well. PD is happy because they're not wasting time on false alarms, the company's happy because it's making money, and the client's happy because they're not paying fines to the city anymore for false responses.

Just something to think about...

[N. A. Corbier]

While this may seem odd to some, it's not a bad thing for the security industry. Portland, OR and most of it's suburbs have been non-response for quite a while now. Because of that, the security companies in the area that have stepped up to have armed patrol departments have been proving their worth. The patrol agency I used to work for had no less than 12 cars on the road per night, each with an assigned district. When an alarm was activated, they called our dispatch center, who sent us out. If it was false, so be it. If not, we would get a cover unit (or 2, 3, whatever) to set up containment while dispatch notified PD. It works surprisingly well. PD is happy because they're not wasting time on false alarms, the company's happy because it's making money, and the client's happy because they're not paying fines to the city anymore for false responses.

Just something to think about...

Yah, this is bad for the integrators and their clients (They have to factor in the cost of armed patrol contracts to serve their customers), but a boon in the making for patrol contractors.

Hopefully integrators are attempting to get package deals from patrol companies, as with proper negotiation and planning, the total cost can be kept down for the integrator, and the patrol company doesn't have to ghost properties or take other cuts to take these contracts on and still maintain a profit.

[Mr. Security]

I live in a community of about 35,000 people. About 20% of the police calls are for general burglary alarms. This ties up at least two officers. It's very rare that the alarm is valid. Like Bill said, if these calls become routine to the police, they might respond with their guard down. It's human nature. That's why authorities may hesitate to issue a tsunami warning. They rarely happen as expected and pretty soon, no one takes it seriously. I can understand why communities are adopting such policies.

[Warren]

Personally, I think that police responding to alarms is a waste of resources.

A security company, armed guard, protected guard, private K9 and the like can do as good a job, or better to respond to an alarm. Although, the system is only as effective as the security response is.

One example of resources being stretched was about 2 months ago. A customer of mine, a local auto auction house, was hit twice in 2 days. (We only provide a random site check service to them).

Both times the yard access gate was cut. The first time, a drug seizure vehicle was stolen. The police did not show up until an hour or longer.

The second incident was similar, lock cut, gate open, footprints in fresh snow going in, and nothing coming out. The rest of the perimeter was secure.

I called the police, they outright said that they would not be able to attend for several hours, if at all, due to the high call volume that night.

Here is a perfect example of security able to take up the slack. We walked the entire lot, checking all vehicles, following the footprints, checking the security of buildings etc. (THe footprints went over the back fence, by the way).

The keyholder arrived, we signed off on the incident telling the keyholder/owner that we checked everything, and was clear. He was happy, the situation was dealt with in <1 hour, and the police never did show up.

Many alarms could be responded to in a similar fashion, saving time for all.

[N. A. Corbier]

Personally, I think that police responding to alarms is a waste of resources.

A security company, armed guard, protected guard, private K9 and the like can do as good a job, or better to respond to an alarm. Although, the system is only as effective as the security response is.

One example of resources being stretched was about 2 months ago. A customer of mine, a local auto auction house, was hit twice in 2 days. (We only provide a random site check service to them).

Both times the yard access gate was cut. The first time, a drug seizure vehicle was stolen. The police did not show up until an hour or longer.

The second incident was similar, lock cut, gate open, footprints in fresh snow going in, and nothing coming out. The rest of the perimeter was secure.

I called the police, they outright said that they would not be able to attend for several hours, if at all, due to the high call volume that night.

Here is a perfect example of security able to take up the slack. We walked the entire lot, checking all vehicles, following the footprints, checking the security of buildings etc. (THe footprints went over the back fence, by the way).

The keyholder arrived, we signed off on the incident telling the keyholder/owner that we checked everything, and was clear. He was happy, the situation was dealt with in <1 hour, and the police never did show up.

Many alarms could be responded to in a similar fashion, saving time for all.

Alarm Response is a hot industry, I'm told. And, mobile patrol services, as well, perform a sort of response - even if the alarm company does not make notification to the security force.

The main difference here, though, is that the police response is "free." There is no contract to be entered, anyone can call 911 and report a burglary in progress.

With a private security company doing the response, a contract must be established, payment must be rendered, written authorizations for weapons on the property (usually in the contract) must be sought, etc.

People also believe that the police will disregard traffic laws to respond. Why? Its a crime against property, its not worth risking the lives of the public, and the officer, to run hot to the call. The BG's gone. If he isn't, then he's sloppy and you'd of caught him anyway.

[Charger]

Alarm Response is a hot industry, I'm told. And, mobile patrol services, as well, perform a sort of response - even if the alarm company does not make notification to the security force.

The main difference here, though, is that the police response is "free." There is no contract to be entered, anyone can call 911 and report a burglary in progress.

With a private security company doing the response, a contract must be established, payment must be rendered, written authorizations for weapons on the property (usually in the contract) must be sought, etc.

People also believe that the police will disregard traffic laws to respond. Why? Its a crime against property, its not worth risking the lives of the public, and the officer, to run hot to the call. The BG's gone. If he isn't, then he's sloppy and you'd of caught him anyway.

Very true.. The patrol company I used to work for prided themselves on alarm response as being their speciality.. Of course, they are also an alarm COMPANY... So it was a big selling point for them to provide an alarm system, and offer the patrol/response services along with it.. (Although we offered patrol/response on any brand of alarm) I never heard the specifics of the contracts, but I was told that all clients were allotted a few free responses per month (3 if I remember correctly) before they started getting charged extra.
Also, you mentioned profit in your earlier post... I actually discussed this with my supe at the time, and found out some interesting info... The patrol division, even though they were the 'pride of the company', actually was NOT profitable... In fact, it barely broke even. Between the wages for the Officer, and fuel for the vehicle, each 'district' barely took in enough money to cover costs. Yet the company is one of the most successful in the area. Why? Because that highly professional patrol division is like a rolling billboard for the Site division, which is where the actual profit comes from.

[N. A. Corbier]

Very true.. The patrol company I used to work for prided themselves on alarm response as being their speciality.. Of course, they are also an alarm COMPANY... So it was a big selling point for them to provide an alarm system, and offer the patrol/response services along with it.. (Although we offered patrol/response on any brand of alarm) I never heard the specifics of the contracts, but I was told that all clients were allotted a few free responses per month (3 if I remember correctly) before they started getting charged extra.
Also, you mentioned profit in your earlier post... I actually discussed this with my supe at the time, and found out some interesting info... The patrol division, even though they were the 'pride of the company', actually was NOT profitable... In fact, it barely broke even. Between the wages for the Officer, and fuel for the vehicle, each 'district' barely took in enough money to cover costs. Yet the company is one of the most successful in the area. Why? Because that highly professional patrol division is like a rolling billboard for the Site division, which is where the actual profit comes from.

That's about right. I do NOT expect to make much money off the trucks or cars. I do expect to make money off High Risk Services Unit deployments, which are walking billboards for your own private police department, and Community Resource Team contracts where the residential property is either so large or so affulent that they want their own private police force that also acts as a client management representative. Think gated condo patrol.

These high visibility contracts and assignments, however temporary, make huge impact in people's minds. And they'll call, going, "Do you put security guards on sites? Like other companies?" And we'll be like, "Well, we do, actually. You can even have one of those trucks assigned to your property, your own truck, or we can have both an officer on site, and the ability to call for patrol and response."

If your patrol division is going to break even, or operate at a loss, I see no reason to use them to achieve company objectives such as backup/support, saturation patrol, and other ideas, then bill the client because 4 trucks showed up to stop a riot at their bar.

Between the negative media attention, possible "your a public nusance" from the police, and patrons not feeling safe, I would think a client might want to pay 25 bucks to have a truck on site for 10 minutes to stop something really bad, rather than have the police called.

Case in point: Several area taverns have been recently featured in our local paper, because the bouncers called the police for a large disorderly crowd, instead of just removing them. The police commented on the situation, and the "bouncers" ineffectiveness.

Both the company owning those "bouncers" and the client really don't want that kind of publicity, I would think. But, I'd love the publicity of surrounding businesses asking my folks how they clear out 20 drunks without the police needing to be called.

Again, protection vs. enforcement.

[Mr. Security]

I am in Los Angeles, anything special in Los Angeles?

Nah, just the usual: Bank robberies, riots, earthquakes, mudslides, high-speed pursuits, celebrity murder trials, etc., etc., etc.

[Andy Taylor]

btt for the sales jerk

[eyeoncashman]

Responsible Sales

We are flooded with over zealous sales people with no experience and little concern for law enforcement. This type of pressure to be responsible can only help our industry.

[Bill Warnock]

We are flooded with over zealous sales people with no experience and little concern for law enforcement. This type of pressure to be responsible can only help our industry.

If you do not know anything about electricity/electronics, no concept of sensor selection for a particular application you have no business trying to snow the client with a 30-minute security survey.
There is no such thing as a false alarm, something had to trigger the alarm. If all alarms appear after a thunderstorm or a power outage, then it has not been done correctly.
There is not good reason to have a police officer run from pillar to post responding to these spurious alarms.
Enjoy the day,
Bill