Starting October 1, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) will only dispatch officers to professionally monitored intrusion alarms if there is verified evidence of a crime, such as video, audio, panic alarms or eyewitness reports indicating an unlawful entry or attempted break-in at a residence or commercial property.
In a letter delivered to security companies on September 13, Interim SPD Chief Sue Rahr stated the decision was aimed at combatting the thousands of false alarm calls the department responds to each year. In 2023, the Seattle 911 Center received approximately 13,000 residential and commercial intrusion alarm calls from alarm monitoring companies, according to the SPD. Of those calls, only 4 percent were linked to confirmed crimes that led to a report or an arrest. The majority of the calls were the result of a sensor trip by a homeowner or business employee. Many others were the result of old or failing equipment.
“The Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the City of Seattle are committed to providing quality and timely service to its residents and businesses with the resources available. Our highest priority is responding to violent in-progress incidents that threaten the safety of our communities,” Rahr said. “With those principles in mind, SPD has evaluated its response to a variety of different 911 calls for service to determine how we can most effectively ensure enough officers are available to respond to those violent incidents.”
Adopting verified alarm response could affect thousands of people who use alarm systems to protect their homes and businesses and potentially put people at risk, Steve Keefer, deputy executive director, Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC), told SDM.
“It is unnecessary and unfair to the citizens who are trying to protect their homes and businesses by purchasing a professional alarm system, coupled with professional monitoring,” he said. “SIAC understands the needs law enforcement executives face regarding resource reductions. Staffing shortages are affecting many jurisdictions as they experience crime increases. However, solutions are best reached when made in partnership with segments of the community they serve and the appropriate industry, as in this case the alarm industry.”
According to SIAC, by implementing verified response for all alarm users, the SPD is creating a large burden on 85 percent of alarm users who do not have any false alarms in a 12-month period. That segment of 85 percent equates to approximately 60,000 alarm users in Seattle who are being penalized for doing nothing wrong, yet they must upgrade their systems to gain a police response, he explained.
“The Seattle Police Department would more than likely change their stance if they were provided and understood in-depth knowledge of SIAC’s Model Alarm Ordinance and its successes,” he said.
Keefer said there are more questions than answers at this point as to how the new policy will unfold in months to come; however, commercial accounts will suffer the most with upgrading costs, so their alarm systems align with SPD requirements.
“Upgrading will be costly to small, medium and large buildings but obviously the large buildings will experience very high costs. The homeowner will be impacted, not only by the cost but will not gain a police response even after installing video technology in some scenarios,” Keefer said. For example, arming the system in stay mode before going to bed will deactivate that technology for the purpose of preventing false alarms. The homeowner is then left with perimeter contacts, which when tripped/activated at 2 a.m. will not receive a patrol response.
Keefer noted two other potential impacts of the new policy. Some alarm users can be expected to check their own premise when notified by the central station of the activation, even though they were advised against. This could lead to personal harm if the committed criminal chooses to attack versus flee. Another impact is the logistics of arranging guard service to thousands of accounts with only two weeks’ notice.
“This is simply an impossibility,” Keefer said. “We are still attempting to engage city leaders with hopes of delaying this two week launch date by the police department.”
The SPD has faced difficulties in rebuilding its workforce following a significant loss of officers in recent years. The department, which had nearly 1,400 officers before the COVID-19 pandemic, now has approximately 930 fully trained officers — its lowest level since 1991. Recruitment efforts have not been able to keep up with the rate of retirements and other departures.
Keefer commented SIAC understands the resource constraints and the challenges that law enforcement executives face. The nonprofit organization has worked in partnership with several thousand law enforcement agencies over the past 22 years in one fashion or another, with many of those adopting proven solutions to greatly reduce false alarms.
RELATED: How the AVS-01 Standard Revolutionizes the Monitoring Industry
SIAC’s public outreach efforts include engaging with top leadership from International Chief of Police Association (IACP) and National Sheriffs Association (NSA). One example of working in partnership was the development and vetting of the model alarm ordinance. Both organizations adopted resolutions, recognizing the value of the model alarm ordinance as well as recommending agencies consider implementing the model ordinance to reduce false alarms.
Additionally, following SIAC's guidance, the NSA recently passed a new resolution supporting the AVS-01 standard.
These examples highlight the importance and benefits of collaboration in addressing complex issues like reducing alarm-related dispatch calls, Keefer noted. He emphasized that the key solution for Seattle PD is not implementing verified response for all users, but rather focusing on verified response for repeat offenders.
“This best practice alone would change their controversial response to an accepted solution by alarm users and the alarm industry, yet still reap impressive alarm call for service reductions,” he said. “There are ways to find common ground, while not endangering citizens or giving the perception of turning your back on a select segment of the community.”
