Law enforcementDetroit police to stop responding to unverified burglar alarms

As of Monday, 22 August, the Detroit police department will no longer respond to burglar alarms unless security companies can verify the need for an officer.

According to Detroit police chief Ralph Godbee, the new policy, called “Verification Response,” is aimed at reducing the number of false alarms and allowing officers more time to focus on critical duties.

Godbee said that more than 98 percent of all burglar alarms are false alarms that keep officers off the streets. To limit the number of responses, Godbee will no longer dispatch officers unless a private security company associated with the alarm can confirm that an officer is needed.

Under the policy, a security company’s staff or building owner must go to the scene to confirm the alarm and the person who verifies the break-in must wait there until the officer arrives. If the security staff member can verify the break-in via video or audio, they must relay the details to 911 operators and the call will be recorded and handed over to police within twenty four hours of the incident.

If an alarm occurs at a government facility, a building that is part of the city’s critical infrastructure, weapons shop, or is a panic alarm, police will be dispatched immediately without verification.

Critics of the new policy fear that it will exacerbate safety conditions in a city already plagued by crime and slow police response times.

“It’s absolutely ludicrous,” said David Goldstein, the president of Guardian Alarm Co. “I can’t imagine the city understands what they’re getting into.”

Roger Pappas, the president of Vulcanmasters Welding Co. Inc., said if police stopped responding to alarms, “that would be a problem.”

Pappas added that even with false alarms, “Law enforcement needs to maintain a presence in the area. If they have to drive by and look at the alarm, it’s a response but it’s not totally wasted. They’re driving through a neighborhood and keeping an eye out, and last time I checked that was law enforcement’s job. For you not to respond to my alarm, it’s not exactly what I would call business friendly.”

Goldstein added that requiring security companies to send out a representative to verify a break-in could be potentially dangerous liability.

“Imagine this — you’re in Detroit, you get an alarm at 10 p.m., 11:30 at night. I’ve got to send a guard, most are unarmed, and they’ve got to go into somebody’s backyard in the middle of the night? There are liabilities. We’re not trained like a police officer,” he explained.

In defense of the policy, Stan Martin, the executive director of the Security Industry Alarm Coalition, a national trade organization, said that roughly as many as twenty cities out of 18,000 communities across the United States have “some form of non-response” in place including verified response as a way to cut down on false alarms.

Martin did note that most major cities dispatch police to alarms as they consider it a core service.

“We’re not against verification in principal, but we are if it’s the only measure,” said Dean Belisle, the president of Act Now Alarm Services and the president of the Burglar and Fire Alarm Association of Michigan. “The truth is police can’t be everywhere, and the citizens of Detroit have chosen alarm systems. But if we’re requiring someone to be on premises all the time, why have an alarm? The Detroit Police Department has determined they need two highly trained armed officers to respond to any type of criminal event, but they’re asking us to send an untrained, unarmed civilian into that role. … I think they’re going to get more trouble than they’re solving.”