Connecticut Senate Bill SB00150

Connecticut 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/10
• Refer: 2/10/10
• Report Pass: 2/25/10
• Refer: 3/5/10
• Report Pass: 3/11/10
• Engrossed: 4/21/10
• Report Pass: 4/22/10

Caption

An Act Concerning Repeated False Alarms.

Impact

The bill amends existing state laws regarding the penalties associated with false alarms, introducing a tiered fine structure for subscribers who exceed the allowable number of false alarms in a year. Fines range from twenty-five dollars for the fourth false alarm to one hundred dollars for the seventh and subsequent offenses. This structure is designed to incentivize subscribers to ensure their alarm systems are properly maintained and reduce unnecessary calls to emergency services.

Summary

SB00150, titled 'An Act Concerning Repeated False Alarms', addresses the issue of false alarms triggered by alarm systems that require a response from emergency services, specifically the Division of State Police. The bill stipulates that subscribers of alarm systems will face fines for each false alarm, but the first three false alarms in a calendar year will be exempt from penalties. This provision aims to mitigate the increasing frequency of false alarms, which can divert critical resources away from legitimate emergencies.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB00150 is largely supportive among law enforcement and emergency responders who emphasize the need for efficient resource management. Proponents argue that the bill will significantly reduce the number of false alarms, which consumes time and budget resources. However, there may be concerns among property owners and alarm users regarding the potential financial burden associated with repeated false alarms, especially for those who may face financial hardship due to the fines.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential for mismanagement of alarm systems by subscribers, leading to increased fines, and the question of whether the fines are an adequate deterrent. Some stakeholders may argue that while the bill aims to improve emergency response efficiency, it could disproportionately affect individuals who rely on alarm systems for safety, possibly leading to a conflict between public safety and civil financial responsibilities.