Seattle police will soon need 'supporting evidence' before they'll respond to security alarm calls
The Seattle Police Department will no longer send out patrol units in response to security alarm calls unless they are accompanied by "supporting evidence."On September 13, Seattle interim police Chief Sue Rahr issued a letter explaining that the department regularly receives a barrage of calls from alarm monitoring companies, and only a tiny fraction of them correspond to actual criminal activity. The vast majority of cases are simply accidental sensor trips or equipment malfunctions, she said.'There is a better way.'To demonstrate, Rahr claimed that SPD received 13,000 such alarm calls for businesses and residences in 2023 alone. Of them, fewer than 4% "were confirmed to have a crime associated with them that resulted in an arrest or report being written," she wrote.Staffing shortages have forced SPD officials to rethink their response protocols. Beginning October 1, SPD will dispatch a patrol unit only when "supporting evidence" — including audio, video, eyewitnesses, and/or a concomitant panic alarm — indicates that a crime is underway."With depleted resources we cannot prioritize a patrol response when there is a very low probability that criminal activity is taking place," Rahr said."Our highest priority is responding to violent in-progress incidents that threaten the safety of our communities."Rahr's letter clarified that the new policy will not alter existing licensing and reporting requirements for alarm system monitoring companies as defined in the city municipal code.The new policy will affect approximately 75,000 alarm sites, KOMO reported.Representatives from some alarm companies expressed dismay about the policy change, claiming it will especially endanger children and businesses such as banks, pharmacies, and gun stores that carry items coveted by burglars. They were also frustrated that they have been given so little time to prepare for the change."The verified response policy has been tried and rejected numerous times including by cities such as Dallas, Texas, and San Jose, California. It goes against best practices established through a collaborative effort by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriff’s Association," said a statement from Washington Alarm."Our industry supports the police and agrees that they need to conserve resources. But there is a better way."Steve Autio of ADI Global Distribution agreed that the new policy will "make the city even less safe."He also wishes the department had reached out to the alarm companies before sending the letter. "We can work together with the police department to come up with other ideas," Autio told My Northwest.Members of some companies are expected to attend city council meetings this week to voice their concerns.H/T: The Post MillennialLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Seattle Police Department will no longer send out patrol units in response to security alarm calls unless they are accompanied by "supporting evidence."
On September 13, Seattle interim police Chief Sue Rahr issued a letter explaining that the department regularly receives a barrage of calls from alarm monitoring companies, and only a tiny fraction of them correspond to actual criminal activity. The vast majority of cases are simply accidental sensor trips or equipment malfunctions, she said.
'There is a better way.'
To demonstrate, Rahr claimed that SPD received 13,000 such alarm calls for businesses and residences in 2023 alone. Of them, fewer than 4% "were confirmed to have a crime associated with them that resulted in an arrest or report being written," she wrote.
Staffing shortages have forced SPD officials to rethink their response protocols. Beginning October 1, SPD will dispatch a patrol unit only when "supporting evidence" — including audio, video, eyewitnesses, and/or a concomitant panic alarm — indicates that a crime is underway.
"With depleted resources we cannot prioritize a patrol response when there is a very low probability that criminal activity is taking place," Rahr said.
"Our highest priority is responding to violent in-progress incidents that threaten the safety of our communities."
Rahr's letter clarified that the new policy will not alter existing licensing and reporting requirements for alarm system monitoring companies as defined in the city municipal code.
The new policy will affect approximately 75,000 alarm sites, KOMO reported.
Representatives from some alarm companies expressed dismay about the policy change, claiming it will especially endanger children and businesses such as banks, pharmacies, and gun stores that carry items coveted by burglars. They were also frustrated that they have been given so little time to prepare for the change.
"The verified response policy has been tried and rejected numerous times including by cities such as Dallas, Texas, and San Jose, California. It goes against best practices established through a collaborative effort by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriff’s Association," said a statement from Washington Alarm.
"Our industry supports the police and agrees that they need to conserve resources. But there is a better way."
Steve Autio of ADI Global Distribution agreed that the new policy will "make the city even less safe."
He also wishes the department had reached out to the alarm companies before sending the letter. "We can work together with the police department to come up with other ideas," Autio told My Northwest.
Members of some companies are expected to attend city council meetings this week to voice their concerns.
H/T: The Post Millennial
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
