Police departments across the nation have been greatly disturbed with false alarms, which they claim have become quite costly and time consuming. According to their point of view, an alarm condition should indicate the presence of a real emergency and should call for a prompt response. If, however, some alarms keep going off very frequently, be it in the morning or evening hours, the police respond when no real emergency exists; therefore, an officer's natural human tendency is to treat it as a low priority in comparison with some systems. which go off only as a result of a real intrusion.

Police officers may also acquire a pattern of response, which is potentially dangerous to their safety, as well as one that provides less real service and protection to the business community. This situation has caused many law enforcement agencies to propose and pass regulatory ordinances to gain control of the false alarm problem. Some cities have decided to deal with this problem in a punitive fashion.

Ordinances have been enacted which require minimum standards of installation and performance. Permits are required to be purchased by subscribers which may be revoked and fines imposed for an excessive number of false alarms.

In addition, some police departments are adopting a policy of not responding to "problem" alarms or of assigning a low priority to them. In effect, the false alarms are looked upon as crying wolf and when a genuine signal is received, it may be treated as another false learn. This unfortunately does minimize and jeopardize the effectiveness of all alarm systems.

According to police statistics nationwide, a 97% or 98% false alarm ratio has been attached to the alarm industry. This, of course, has undermined the respectability and dependability of bona fide and efficient alarm companies. I personally do not agree with the above statistics and if accurate statistics were applied, a true picture would emerge and there would be no need for so many proposed ordinances and restrictions. These statistics should be revised and viewed in proper perspective in order to reverse this self-defeating trend and to gain full police cooperation which seems essential to cope with crime successfully. Statistically, the whole must be equal to the sum of all it's parts. Accordingly, if any given city has 5,000 alarm systems in operation, and if on any given night I 00 systems went off for no apparent reason, this would amount to a mere 2% - not 98% of all alarm systems.

To refute the false statistics, it becomes apparent that 98%, or 4,900 alarm systems being intact and functioning properly, are armed and ready to be triggered when attacked. It means that 4,900 business establishments are protected and safeguarded in every section of the city, thereby relieving a great number of police squad cars for other duties. Therefore, it would be statistically invalid to claim that 98% false alarm ratio exists. Assuming the same city has I 0,000 or 20,000 alarm systems in operation and experiences only 2 false alarms, this, according to the logic accepted by police departments, still constitutes a I 00% ratio of false alarms. To further refute such erroneous contentions, let's assume that General Motors manufactures 5,000,000 care per year and suppose that I 00,000 vehicles fall apart on the highways and freeways of the United States. This would of course require police attention and would be costly and time consuming. This number would represent only 2% of malfunctions and 98%, or 4,900,000 cars, would still be performing well. Would anyone dare to accuse General Motors of having a 98% ratio of defective automobiles? Not even Ralph Nader would make this kind of a statement.

Seeking Solutions

However, we in the alarm industry sympathize with the law enforcement agencies' problems of not having sufficient manpower and of running deficit budgets, and we realize that without their cooperation, business communities across the nation would find themselves in great jeopardy, and so would the alarm industry. As matters stand now, businessmen in general are not aware of the predicament in which they have been placed and have a false sense of security. They feel that in case of an attack upon their premises, the police department will respond immediately, but we know that this is not always the case, due to the fact that the false alarms have affected the thinking of all law enforcement agencies.

We are also aware of the fact, and the stark realities of the present situation, that if our subscribers had to rely solely on the response of the alarm companies' personnel, which normally takes an average of between 15 to 50 minutes, the business communities would be faced with the grim prospect of being the prey of every criminal. Of course we realize that the point of view of the proprietors of business establishments must be, as citizens and taxpayers, that they have every right to expect and demand adequate protection from the law enforcement agencies which they financially support. Therefore, we earnestly hope that a solution will be found to this serious problem which confronts all of us. Regardless of which set of statistics one believes in, we must totally commit ourselves to the reduction of the false alarm problem nationwide.

Beeper Device (Beeper Device introduced by Mr. Berlin in 1978).

I feel that there is a way to reduce false alarms caused by subscribers. I would like to see manufacturers of alarm equipment incorporate a beeper device into supervised central station transmitters. Such a device would beep upon all entries, regular or irregular, thereby alerting the person entering the premises to the fact that the beeper has to be silenced by turning off the transmitter. A sign or decal placed on the transmitter would read as follows: "if you entered early or on holidays, please call your alarm company immediately". Once the subscriber notified the alarm company and identified himself with the proper code regarding the early or irregular entry, the central station would in turn be able to advise the police department that it was the subscriber's error. The police could stop any squad car from responding to a call which would otherwise be classified as a false alarm.

This simple method might completely eliminate or drastically reduce the false alarms caused by subscribers, which at this time represents 40 to 50% of the 97% total figure according to police department statistics. Based on these statistics, 1 out of every 2 false alarms is caused by subscribers. This kind of reduction would be quite an accomplishment for the alarm industry, and coupled with our continuous fight for improved alarm equipment and installations, it might significantly change the situation, thus removing the stigma of 97% false alarms which has been attached to our industry.

Training Employees
Until such time when the beeper device is available, Morse Signal Devices of San Diego and some other companies on the west coast have started the program by using decals on all central station transmitters.

We have initiated the program in the following fashion: all central station transmitters are being equipped with a sonalert device and a pressure sensitive decal by the receiving department. The sales department has been instructed to inform and educate management whenever a sale is generated, how vital it is to make sure that all employees be trained and explained to them the problem the alarm industry is facing nationwide with the police departments regarding false alarms and that a significant number is caused by employees entering early ahead of scheduled time, holidays or re- entering during closed periods, without making arrangements in advance, and that crying wolf diminishes greatly the protection they are paying for. This may force some alarm companies to level charges upon subscribers for causing them and may also cause the police department to actually stop responding to any alarm condition.

We ask management to have their employees turn off the transmitter as soon as the beeper sounds upon each entry and to check themselves out, whether their entry is regular or irregular as they look at the decal placed on the transmitter. If it is regular, just turn the system off as usual, but if 4 is unscheduled then they must phone the central office immediately. Our installation crews briefly repeat the procedure upon completion of installation, while instructing the subscriber as to the usage of the system. Our service department (day servicemen only) place the "entry decal" whenever servicing an existing account, if time permits, with proper explanation to management. We are also installing the device whenever an existing subscriber is abusing the system by creating false alarms. We are experiencing a great deal of cooperation among new and existing accounts and we feel that this newly conceived idea and program, once executed, will bear fruit in the not distant future.

At the recent meeting of the CSEPA in Hilton Head Island in South Carolina, I had the opportunity to introduce this idea to a number of active and associate members and it was received very favorably by most of them. Members of the San Diego Crime Prevention Division and other law enforcement agencies have expressed their approval and felt this approach should be very effective .I would like to emphasize that by offering this program, we are not implying that irregular entries shouldn't be arranged in advance, but what we are trying to get across is the fact that if for some reason an error has been made and no advance notice was given, then they must notify the central office immediately. I have recently discussed this approach with U.L. representatives and they made favorable comments even though they were unable to foretell whether using the above approach would meet their U.L. approval. However, regardless of the outcome, each central station's great majority of accounts consists of non-U.L. subscribers and only between 5 to IO% are U. L. certified.

In conclusion, I am convinced that with a combined effort of every alarm company, this program should become a very effective weapon in combating the false alarm problem nationwide.

ROBERT J. BERLIN is Managing Partner, Morse Signal Devices of San Diego, 4434 30th Street, San Diego, CA, 92116. Berlin entered the burglar alarm business with Morse Signal Devices in Cleveland, Ohio in 1947. In 1957, he moved to San Diego to establish a branch office as executive partner. Berlin joined the IACP in 1976 as an associate member. The article appearing here is reproduced through the courtesy of the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association's Signal magazine.