***************************
COMMENT ON LICENSING FROM JANUARY 8, 2105 ARTICLE
***************************
Ken
    Bruce Boyer?  I realize there are individuals in the industry who hold these beliefs but didn't think they had the balls to make public comments. 
A. J. DeMarzo, President
DFW ALARM
*****************************
RESPONSE
****************************
    Bruce isn't a fan of licensing.
****************************
Ken
    Two pending court cases with the dept of state since 2011-2012.  The person was caught doing business without a license between 3-12-11 to 12-12-11.
As far as I know NOTHING has been done.  Nothing will be done.  They should loose the right to operate in this state for a minimum of 10 years.  This is the state of ny..!!!      We have the best government money can buy..!  Really pisses me off when I have to jump thru the hoops and others don't.  YES you know who you are...!!
    The issue of nys enforcement is a bunch of "Whoo-ee"
Mike
CSS
***********************
RESPONSE
**********************
    I think Mike favors licensing but is disappointed in lack of license enforcement here in NY.  Maybe should complain to our recently arrested Speaker of the Assembly for new laws
************************
POLICE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
*************************
Ken
    Please elaborate re your comment at the bottom of the January 9, 2015 Newsletter.  The issue could influence legislation related to the alarm industry.
Can we interpret your comment to mean that under a current SIAC Model Ordinance, the police risk the loss of their “Sovereign Immunity” when responding to alarm systems, but retain their right to “Sovereign Immunity” without the ordinance, and without alarm response?  
Lee Jones
**********************
RESPONSE
**********************
    I am not familiar with the SIAC model ordinance and I doubt my comments can influence legislation.  I don't make political contributions.  
    My comment in the Jan 9 2015 article was regarding the Tucson, AZ ordinance that requires alarm users to register their alarms in order to get police response, but reminds the public that registering does not create a special duty of police response.  Government immunity is retained.  My comment was clear and I believe correct:
    "That is just the city letting subscribers know that registration does not change the law that police are not responsible for response time or no response at all.  That is the general principle of law because there is no duty owed by the police to individual citizens.  That changes however if the police and a particular citizen do have some relationship which is created by the police giving certain assurances or creating reasonable expectations of protection; then there can be police liability."
    Essentially my point is that by registering your alarm you aren't creating or entitled to a special relationship with the police that nullifies police immunity.  What might be a special relationship?  It would be the police creating an expectation of police response or service that is unique to the person and situation.  For example, a 911 caller is told "police dispatched, on way, be there in 2 minutes, don't leave or do anything ..." and in fact police weren't dispatched.  Or person contacts police and is told that police will be posted outside premises and keep special watch during certain times, when in fact they are not posted and no one lets the person know.  
    The added language to the Tucson ordinance is most likely not necessary.  Not likely that the public would think that registering the alarm entitles them to any special treatment.  More like not registering would be more or less like the sign Dante claims is hanging over the entrance to Hell, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here".  Well, without registering, abandon all hope of police response.  The ordinance lets th public know that even if registering there may not be police response and there's not much anyone can do about it.
***********************