A superior court judge has denied the Los Angeles Police Commission’s application for a continuance of the hearing related to the lawsuit filed by the Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association (GLASAA) and an L.A. resident against the city for its approved verified (nonresponse) policy. The court ruled it is ready to hear the merits of the case directly, bypassing the scheduled preliminary hearing and setting the trial date for May 8.
GLASAA filed suit against the city March 26 seeking a permanent injunction against the new policy, claiming that the rule would violate state law and that the police commission did not have the authority to approve the order on Jan. 7.
Under the order, the Los Angeles Police Department will no longer respond to burglar alarms unless they have been verified by a person or via video. The police commission agreed to delay implementing the rule until April 15, but otherwise indicated that it would be implemented as soon as possible.
The expedited trial schedule is welcome news for GLASAA. “GLASAA is convinced that there are solutions to the false alarm issue that do not require eliminating police response,” says George Gunning, representing GLASAA in a letter to the industry on the matter.
Meanwhile, the association has come up with a six-point plan that, if implemented in conjunction with enforcement of Los Angeles’ current burglar alarm ordinance, says will significantly reduce the number of responses to false alarms:(1) Obtain the first permit for any/all new burglar alarm customers
(2) Provide the city a confidential list of all alarm company customers
(3) Institute a mandatory seven-day education period for new alarm owners with no dispatch to LAPD
(4) Implement enhanced telephonic second-call verification process
(5) Require “habitual abusers” (residents or businesses with five or more police responses to false alarms) to utilize visual verification prior to LAPD dispatch
(6) Remind customers on an annual basis to renew their city alarm permits
