Pitfalls in Alarm Policy

The Los Angeles Police Commission blinked: On the brink of finally getting the Los Angeles Police Department out of the private burglar alarm business, four of five members of the civilian board caved last week to pressure from the mayor who appointed them. In putting politics ahead of police reform, they showed either a dire misunderstanding of how to best use the city’s understaffed police force or a lack of political will to change how the LAPD fights crime.

The gutsy “verified response” policy they adopted in January aimed to reduce the time officers waste on burglar alarms, which, like constantly blaring car alarms, nine times out of 10 prove false. It would have shifted responsibility for confirming break-ins from police to firms that install alarms and pocket the monthly fees.

Mayor James K. Hahn’s “two strikes” compromise gives owners two false alarms a year before requiring verification, fining them $95 for the first and $145 for the second; this doubles if the owner lacks a city permit. The policy is tougher than the three strikes proposed by a City Council-appointed task force. But a U.S. Justice Department-sponsored study found such measures only partially effective in reining in false alarms.

Besides being less effective, Hahn’s plan introduces new pitfalls, as three City Council members pointed out Friday in calling for a delay in its implementation. A new computer system, due online in January, must be modified to track alarms. No one can say what this will cost. No one can answer if the city can be held liable if this software errs. And no one can say how much effort will go to collecting permit fees and fines, given that half the alarm households do not have permits and all are unaccustomed to fines.

But then, no one has explained why the city ought to provide what amounts to private police services to owners of alarms. Nor is it clear how an outcry from those owners constitutes the groundswell claimed by some City Council members; only 6% of the city’s population has alarms.

City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, sister of the mayor and leader of the fight against the tougher policy, claims that everyone benefits from the deterrent effect of neighborhood patrols, even if the alarms they’re answering turn out to be false. But since the greatest number of alarm calls come from low-crime West L.A. and the San Fernando Valley, this argument contradicts the proactive policing that Chief William J. Bratton hopes to introduce with computerized crime-mapping that sends officers to neighborhoods where they’re needed most. It cuts to the very core of how he plans to cut crime in Los Angeles.

On Tuesday, David S. Cunningham III is expected to replace Rick Caruso as Police Commission president. We have not always agreed with Caruso, but he has been an independent, outspoken reformer; he last week cast the lone vote against the alarm compromise. Cunningham’s first challenge will be to show that he wants to promote good policing, not please politicians.