L.A. Police Response to Alarms

The Times thinks that the LAPD should respond only to “verified” alarms, citing, among other things, the 92% false-alarm rate (“Stand By False-Alarm Plan,” editorial, April 24). I will concur that a 92% false-alarm rate is unacceptable. But The Times goes on to make the claim that about half of the 300,000 alarm owners in Los Angeles ignore the permit requirement.

Why is the LAPD responding to alarms that have no permit? Instead of an across-the-board nonresponse to alarms, why not start by refusing to respond to reports from alarms without permits? A blanket policy to respond only to verified alarms serves as an incentive to criminals to prevent verification by any means necessary. So now, a burglar or rapist can “take his sweet time” if he is able to prevent an alarm owner from verifying the alarm. This is a dangerous precedent.

Two months ago, when the new policy was approved by the City Council, I wrote to the Police Commission suggesting a “cry wolf” policy, wherein alarm owners with a history of false alarms would be given “less favorable” response status. In this way, a potential burglar would not be privy to a victim’s “status” and could not presume that there would be no response to the alarm. This would serve as a continued deterrent to criminal behavior.

Michael J. Allegretti

Chatsworth

*

Your editorial criticizing the false-alarm compromise does a great disservice to middle-class homeowners by making their investment in an alarm system worthless. The rich, whose homes are protected by a private patrol, are not affected, nor are the elected city officials whose lives and property are considered more valuable than the common folk. There has to be a middle ground that does not leave us defenseless against criminals who can ignore alarms with impunity.

Gary A. Robb

Los Angeles