Officer Down: False Dispatch Leads to Shot Fired
Calls were then placed to the cellphones of the homeowner and his wife also at about 2:23 a.m.; messages were left on both phones about the alarm activation and police response. The employee then phoned and spoke to a neighbor who was on the homeowner’s contact list. About nine minutes after the first alarm event, the officers arrived on the scene and began to search outside the residence. According to a police report, the neighbor, who had a key to the residence, told police the homeowner was on vacation and that the two-story house should be empty.
At 2:34 a.m. the officers triggered a second alarm when they pulled on the outside sliding glass door; the alarm event was reported to the central station. A different employee handled this second alarm activation and placed a call to the residence. Employee No. 2 spoke to the homeowner who then gave the proper code to the operator and confirmed that no emergency existed, according to a police report.
Employee No. 2 did not notify the homeowner of the initial alarm activation, what zone triggered the alarm, or that police had been dispatched to his home. The responding officers were not subsequently made aware the homeowner was indeed in the house or that employee No. 2 had communicated with him. The policemen, who were in full uniform, proceeded into the residence. They spotted a dim light on the second floor and saw a shadowy figure, according to a police report. As they continued to maneuver in the house, Officer John was shot just below his bulletproof vest by the homeowner as he reached the second floor.
The officers did not declare their presence when entering the home. Such an announcement could be useful in certain situations, but could also risk giving away their tactical advantage, police said. The homeowner, who reportedly suffers from a condition that greatly diminishes his night vision, was not charged in the shooting.
Monitoring Personnel Fail to Apply Fundamental Tenets
Part of the dereliction of duty and inability to execute proper dispatch notification protocols by the monitoring personnel was due to the central station’s overall lack of proper employee supervision and training, Zwirn alleges. The central station acted dangerously and irresponsibly in this case by concealing material facts from the police that an earlier alarm, which they notified the police about, was in fact a false alarm, Zwirn explains. This was demonstrated by the central station operator who was able to authenticate and verify the homeowner’s presence shortly after the initial alarm was relayed to the police for dispatch.
If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!
About the Author
Rodney Bosch, Senior Editor
Although Bosch’s name is quite familiar to those in the security industry, his previous experience has been in daily newspaper journalism. Prior to joining SECURITY SALES & INTEGRATION in 2006, he spent 15 years with the Los Angeles Times, where he performed a wide assortment of editorial responsibilities, including feature and metro department assignments as well as content producing for latimes.com. Bosch is a graduate of California State University, Fresno with a degree in Mass Communication & Journalism. In 2007, he successfully completed the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association’s National Training School coursework to become a Certified Level I Alarm Technician.
Related Content
Security Is Our Business, Too
For professionals who recommend, buy and install all types of electronic security equipment, a free subscription to Commercial Integrator + Security Sales & Integration is like having a consultant on call. You’ll find an ideal balance of technology and business coverage, with installation tips and techniques for products and updates on how to add to your bottom line.
A FREE subscription to the top resource for security and integration industry will prove to be invaluable.
