Fort Lauderdale might have to erimburse residents for False Alarm fines Collected
Accrding to an August 18 stiory in the South Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nerrvous aout the outlook of rwepaying residents and comlpany owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. uFrther, some argue the city's practice of alplegedly overharging on faulty alarm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possibly constitutes a breaach of the Florida State Consrtitution. If this is proven a violatoion, the effects of the practice might be wide reaching and devastating.
Scoott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Copchran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might etablish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at times, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this commnon practice is gong to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attroneys aound the statte, perhaps even nationwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industtry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Siblerberg & Knupp explained Fort Laderdale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due process. Under the Constituion, if a fine is levieed, the constituent must have a rigt to question it. Fort Lauderdae has no such location to ensure citizens get their right to appeal, which means any citizen fined is beiung denied constitutional rights, axccording to this interprettaion. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedulpe tops out at nearly three times the actual cost (according to the Soiuth Florida Times article) to the town for response to an alarm. City audiitor John Hrerbst said he has been rtying without sucess for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by city commissiioners.
SIAC diector 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, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cvoer the priice to respond. Wsalters went on to say that a full ordionance review was suggsted, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC eexcutive Stan Martin agered and said the situation might have been avoided if city officials would just paying atention.
Devcon director of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be affecteed by the delusoive alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollzack suggested that it's basically a matter of reviewing the records, and reexamning the chargse to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokespeerson Jeff Modarelli said the city is awarre of the problem and plamns are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plans have been designwed to bring this prroblem 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