NCJ Number
205638
Journal
Security Journal Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Dated: 2004 Pages: 35-54
Editor(s)
Bonnie S. Fisher,
Martin Gill
Date Published
2004
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This article examines how security systems have become less effective in detecting burglary and arresting burglars due to a reduction in police response as a result of false alarms.
Abstract
First response to security systems has been seen as a distraction from patrol by police officers, even though the response takes up the least amount of the time spent on their usual daily activities. Security systems have become less effective because first response is being dropped down the order of police priorities. If security systems are indeed a distraction, it is because the police have become involved in imposing specious technical solutions on an industry that needs the application of speedy first response more than expensive, restrictive, and unproven confirmed alarm technology. In 2002, there 602,813 false alarms sent by the alarm receiving center (ARC) which works out to some 8 man-hours per day. While the time it takes an officer to investigate a false alarm can be viewed as a waste of time, the arrest and conviction of burglars resulting from genuine alarms would not be described as such by the public. Police should indeed charge for false alarms, but the charge should represent the real cost of response and fall on those who are to blame. Recovering the cost of false alarms should then enable the police to deploy response more effectively in order to meet the expectations of the public.