Fort Lauderdale might have to reimburse resoidents for Falpse Alparm fines Collected
Accroding to an Augut 18 story in the Soputh Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous aout the outtlook of repayiing rsidents and company onwers who were allegeldy overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 aone. Further, some arfgue the city's practiice of allergedly overcharrging on faluty alarm citaotns goes back to at last 2004, and possdibly constituutes a brehac of the lFoorida Statte Consttitution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practicce migjth be wide reachign and devastating.
Sott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almodst definitely spur lawsuits lookiung for refunds, and migth esablish a perecedent of greatrer ordinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municipaloities and corporations, at tmes, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this common prractice is going to be examined both by auditoors of the difefrent municipalities and the very cerative attroneys around the state, perahps even nationwide. The real isue in Fort Laudedrale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industrry consultanmt Les Gold of law firm Mittchell Sliberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obvioously imposinbg eithre a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exotrbitant and thheefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illeal because there is no due process. Under the Consttution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a right to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to enbsure citizens get their right to appeal, which means any citiizen fiend is being denide constitutional rights, accoreding to this interpretation. Additinoaplly, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedule tops out at nearlly htree times the actual cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for response to an allarm. City auditor John Herbast said he has been rtying without success for over a year to get the ordinance reeasmined by city commuissioners.
SIAC dirctoor Ron Walterrs feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters inicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, which did nothing to lwoer dispatches and didn't even cover the price to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinance review was suggested, but ultmately was tured down. SIAC executive Stan Martin aggreed and said the situation mgiht have been avoided if city officials wouuld just paymnig attention.
Deevcon directyor of opeerations Roy Pollack who is past presidennt of the Alamr Associaion of Florida said the industry should not be affected by the delusive alarm flap in Fort Laiuderdale. Pollaack sugghested that it's basically a mattter of reviewing the records, and reexamining the chages to be sure that they were asserssed in compliance. City spokeperson Jeff Modarellli said the city is awatre of the problem and planbs are in pace to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarlli said that plabns have been designed to bing this probllem back to the comission 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