How Do DIY, MIY Security Systems Affect Police Response to Alarm Activation?
Detective H.W. “Robbie” Robinson of the Phoenix Police Code Enforcement Unit, Alarm Inspections explains how police prioritize dispatches to potential crimes.
Does police response vary depending on what home security system is used?
I do not think that DIY-MIY growth will overwhelm law enforcement. The bulk of the alarm systems will remain in the realm of “professional installation” and “professional monitoring.”
The security industry needs to understand that law enforcement cannot stop someone from calling 911 or the non-emergency lines to request police dispatch.
Even trying to stop obnoxious 911 abusers requires a lot of documentation to get a court order or for criminal prosecution. The challenge for law enforcement will be handling the occasional call from the MIY customer who is reporting an alarm event and they are a little excited because someone is messing with their stuff.
It is my opinion that, even in a non-response jurisdiction [where alarm verification is normally required for emergency response], police will respond to a DIY-MIY owner that is giving a credible description of a crime in progress at their home or business based on the video that they are watching on their cellphone alarm app.
The Public Safety Answering Point (or PSAP, the clearinghouse for 911 calls) may not even know it is a DIY-MIY calling until after the officers get to the scene, depending upon what the MIY person said to the PSAP operator.
Chances are, the caller does not sound like a typical Central Monitoring Station (CMS) operator: “Hi, I am Jane calling to report an alarm at the Doe residence.”
The MIY guy is going to be yelling that someone is breaking into their house and the PSAP operator is going to hit the crime-in-progress button and then start getting the details from the MIY caller.
If the DIY-MIY is reporting a non-verified alarm activation — for example, they received a text alert from their securit
y system that the front door was opened — then it would be processed the same as a normal burglar alarm call from a professional CMS for the most part.
Law enforcement already receives non-verified burglar alarm calls like this from neighbors who can hear the siren going off at a fully monitored alarm subscriber system. It becomes a major issue when an alarm subscriber is not correcting the problem, causing the alarm (siren) to go off repeatedly, and is only cancelling police dispatch through the CMS.
I have had to handle the obnoxious ringer called in by the neighbor plenty of times as the alarm inspector for Phoenix PD. It is usually because the subscriber is complaining about getting charged for a false alarm even when they cancelled police dispatch with the CMS. We encourage the neighbors to call for PD dispatch on the ringers so that they are documented in the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records and false alarm tracking system.
Nobody likes obnoxious ringers at 3 a.m., and if the neighbors ignore the alarm, then they are contributing to their own sleepless night. I need the documentation to go after the alarm user and get them to fix their alarm.
If the DIY-MIY is reporting a verified alarm activation using technology such as video, where the caller can articulate that they are watching a crime occur and give detailed information, then it would be processed the same as any crime-in-progress call where there is an eye witness.
The alarm industry has lobbied the law enforcement community for priority dispatch. The recommended best practices for priority response have been laid out by the Partnership for Priority Verified Alarm Response (PPVAR), which considers the ability of the CMS operator to observe and report what they believe to be a crime in progress. It stands to reason that this goes both ways for the security industry and the MIY user.
The challenge for law enforcement will be getting the MIY person to calm down and explain what is going on. Law enforcement call centers are used to dealing with people that range from calm, professional CMS dispatchers to the hysterical traumatized person yelling into the phone. The MIY caller will be somewhere in between, and they will be suffering from an adrenaline rush if they think someone is breaking into their home or business.
Understanding Verified Response
Priority response or “verified response” from law enforcement hinges on one concept and that is a “crime in progress.” It does not matter to law enforcement who calls to report a crime in progress as long as they can articulate what they are seeing or hearing in a credible fashion that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is in progress, where a priority response by law enforcement would be reasonable to protect persons or property.
I think that the security industry is having difficulty trying to grasp this concept because they want to be the ones to call law enforcement and exclude the MIY guy.
In the world of law enforcement, “video verification” of a crime in progress being reported by the “owner” or responsible party, who reasonably knows or should know what is normal or not normal for the location of the alarm event, is no less credible than a central monitoring station operator relaying what they are seeing in a video or hearing on audio at a site where they have no intimate knowledge of the protected site.
It does not matter to law enforcement who calls to report a crime in progress as long as they can articulate what they are seeing or hearing in a credible fashion that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is in progress, where a priority response by law enforcement would be reasonable to protect persons or property.
The security industry has a reputation of false alarms that they have to overcome, while hysterical property owners watching someone steal their stuff have a high degree of reliability.
That is one reason why the PPVAR worked with law enforcement to develop their best practices and came to the conclusion that the mere presence of a human on a video or audio verified security system is not a crime in progress unless the alarm company has contacted the responsible party during the enhanced call verification (ECV) process to confirm that the person seen in the video or heard on audio is not an authorized person at the site.
The PPVAR best practices conclude that it is reasonable for the CMS operator to believe that a crime is in progress and skip the ECV process before calling for police dispatch if the video or audio clearly demonstrates criminal activity and not just a person standing there or casually walking around.
There are way too many “silent” video/audio-verified alarm systems tripped by the alarm user or other authorized persons to warrant priority response unless there is an element of “crime in progress” that can be articulated.
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
Julie Jacobson
Julie Jacobson, recipient of the 2014 CEA TechHome Leadership Award, is co-founder of EH Publishing, producer of CE Pro, Electronic House, Commercial Integrator, Security Sales and other leading technology publications. She currently spends most of her time writing for CE Pro in the areas of home automation, security, networked A/V and the business of home systems integration.
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.
