Seattle Police Will Need ‘Supporting Evidence’ Before Responding to Security Alarms

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) has announced a significant change in its policy regarding responses to security alarm calls.

Starting October 1, SPD will no longer dispatch patrol units to alarm calls unless “supporting evidence” is provided, such as audio, video, eyewitness testimony, or a panic alarm indicating a crime is actively taking place.

In a letter dated September 13, Seattle interim police Chief Sue Rahr explained that the department receives a large volume of alarm calls, most of which turn out to be false alarms due to accidental sensor activations or equipment malfunctions.

“There is a better way,” Rahr stated, pointing out that in 2023 alone, SPD responded to 13,000 alarm calls from businesses and residences, but fewer than 4% of those were linked to actual criminal activity that led to an arrest or an official report.

Rahr cited staffing shortages as a key reason behind the policy shift. With limited resources, SPD must focus on high-priority incidents, particularly violent crimes in progress that pose immediate threats to public safety.

“With depleted resources, we cannot prioritize a patrol response when there is a very low probability that criminal activity is taking place,” Rahr said. She emphasized that protecting the community from active threats remains the department’s top priority.

The new policy will affect approximately 75,000 alarm sites across Seattle, according to a report from KOMO News.

Despite the changes in response protocols, the department clarified that this will not affect existing licensing and reporting requirements for alarm system monitoring companies as outlined in the city’s municipal code.

However, representatives from alarm companies have expressed concerns about the potential risks posed by the new policy, especially for vulnerable locations like banks, pharmacies, and gun stores.

Many fear that the reduced police response will increase the risk of burglary and other crimes. Some companies also pointed out that this policy change could endanger children and other vulnerable populations.

Washington Alarm, one of the affected companies, voiced its frustration in a statement, arguing that the “verified response” policy has been tried and rejected by other cities, including 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,” the company said.

While Washington Alarm acknowledged the need for SPD to conserve resources, they urged the department to explore alternative solutions.

Steve Autio, a representative from ADI Global Distribution, also criticized the new policy, warning that it will “make the city even less safe.”

He expressed disappointment that SPD did not engage with alarm companies before implementing the change, suggesting that a collaborative effort could have produced more effective alternatives.

“We can work together with the police department to come up with other ideas,” Autio said in an interview with My Northwest.

Representatives from several alarm companies are expected to attend upcoming city council meetings to express their concerns and advocate for revisions to the policy.