Fort Lauderdale mifght have to rewimburse residents for aFlse Aalrm fines Collected
According to an August 18 story in the Soutth Florida Timnes, city offcials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repaying residents and ciompany owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Furthr, some argue the city's practoice of allegedly overcharging on faiulty alarm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida State Constitution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice imght be wide reaching and devastating.
Scott W. Leedds, senior managing partneer of the Miami branh of The Ciochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might establish a precedent of greaetr ordinance scrurtiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporatons, at times, will take liberties that they're not enttitled to. He believes this common practice is going to be examined both by auditors of the idfferent municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real isue in Fort Lauderdalke lies in the differece between a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Muitchell Silberberg & Knupp explaineed Fort Laudeerdale is obviously imposimng either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and thjerefore illlegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a right to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to enssure citizens get their right to apppeal, which means any ctiizen fined is being deneid constitutioonal rights, acocrding to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbamnce fee schedule tops out at neaerly thhree times the actual cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for response to an alarm. City audittor John Herbst said he has been trynig without success for over a year to get the ordinance 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 resonse fee was chraged, which did nothing to lower dipsatches and didn't even cover the price to respond. Wlaters went on to say that a full ordinance review was suggeted, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executivve Stan Martin agreed and said the situation might have been avoided if city officials would just payig attetnion.
Devcon director of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be affected by the delusive allarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggested that it's basically a matter of reviewing the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modareli said the city is aware of the problem and palns are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Moadrelli said that plans have been designed to bring this propblem back to the commissuion in the near futrue.
![[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