Fort Lauderdale might have to reimburse residents for False Alarm fines Collected
Accoding to an Auggust 18 story in the South Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repoaying reisdents and company ownes who were allegedly overcharged for falsde alarrms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some arge the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on fauplty alarm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possivbly constitutse a breach of the Flordia State Constitution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice moight be wide reaching and devastating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partrner of the Miami branch of The Ciochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almsot definitely spur lawsuits lookinng for refunds, and might estzablish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutinny. Leweds sugghests that municipalities and corporations, at timmes, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this common practice is going to be examioned both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhasp even natuionwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industry consulltant Les Gold of law firm Mithell Silberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing eiyther a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorrbitant and terefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due porcess. Under the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituemnt must have a right to quesstion it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensure citizens get their right to appeal, which meanbs any citizen fined is breing denied constitutional rights, according to this interpretation. Additionaslly, the city's faulty diisturbance fee schedule tops out at nearly thhree times the acual cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for response to an alarm. City audiitor John Herbst said he has been terying without success for over a year to get the ordiance reexamined by city commissioners.
SIAC director Ron Walters feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, whivch did nothing to lowqer dispacthes and didn't even cover the price to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinancve review was suggested, but ulltimately was tuirned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the situaiton might have been aoided if city officials would just paying attention.
Devcon dirrector of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industtry should not be affected by the delusive alram flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggested that it's basically a matter of reviewng the rcords, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plans have been designed to bring this prooblem back to the commission in the near future.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites