posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:06 PM
by
klehan
Dallas’ Contentious Verified Response Law May be Reviewed
The uproar response to the City of Dallas policy requiring verified response may lead to the overturn of this hot-topic ordinance.
Following months of debate between concerned business owners and the Dallas Police
Department, the Dallas City Council approved a law, by a vote of 8-5 in late 2005, that requires business owners to independently corroborate the validity of a sounding burglar alarm before police will respond.
The Dallas Police Department’s position was that more than 19 in 20 burglar alarms in Dallas ultimately prove to be false. But opponents of verified response argued the policy gives criminals a free pass to terrorize businesses and places businesspeople in peril by forcing them to confirm burglaries that may very well be in progress.
The opponents appear to have been correct. During the first month of verified response – March 2006 –
burglaries in Dallas increased
sharply, up 17.9 percent compared to March the year prior.
Now, Mayor Tom
Leppert, who campaigned for the office with a position against verified response, said it is time for the city fathers to review the law. “I do plan to bring it before the council again. Clearly there are different opinions on it, and at that time, they will come out.”
Mayor Leppert apparently has support from a growing number on the council. “It’s doing the businesses of Dallas an injustice,” said District 13 council member, Mitchell Rasansky, in reply to a business owner who complained to the council. “Council – we need to take another look at this. It’s wrong, and it’s wrong for businesses.”
District 9 council member Sheffie Kadane agreed, “This is a very dangerous situation for our property owners.”
Such comments give hope to Chris Russell, president of the North Texas Alarm Association, which had unsuccessfully fought Dallas’ verified response policy in the first place. “Since it was enacted, the policy has pretty much failed. You have private citizens responding to their own alarms, and that’s a dangerous situation.”