ADT CONTRIBUTES TO CRIMINAL CONVICTION
Here's how it's supposed to work.
Husband and wife lived together, until they didn't, and wife gets possession of the residence and a protective order. Husband knew of the working ADT security system in the house. The "system" was located in the bedroom closet and monitored by ADT. Wife changed the locks and the alarm code when she was awarded possession of the house but allowed husband access to a shed that was adjacent to the house. The shed was up against the house on a wall that had a window that had been closed up and sheet rocked over. While away from the house the wife receives a call from ADT that her alarm has been triggered. She goes home and finds a burning candle in the kitchen next to the stove and a ticking sound which was the pilot light trying to ingnite. She saw the burner had been taken apart and the gas knob turned on. She then goes to the bedroom and finds a hole in the wall where a closed up window had been that leads to the shed, so the hole in the wall wasn't visible from outside the shed. She notices her jewelry is missing.
"Joshua Bennett (Bennett), an installation manager at ADT Security Services, testified that on May 21, 2011, the alarm system at Tam–Davis's house sent multiple “siren supervisory trouble” signals to ADT Security. Bennett described siren supervisory trouble as a signal the security system at the house sends ADT Security Services when the system has lost contact with the siren. The siren normally can be triggered to make a loud noise when the system has an alarm event. However, ADT received the first signal indicating that the siren had been disconnected from the system on May 21 at 6:20 p.m. Disconnecting the siren would have caused the alarm to go off without sound. At 6:23 p.m., ADT Security received another signal from Tam–Davis's house, this time indicating that the interior motion detector detected movement. Bennett testified that once an ADT alarm system goes into “alarm”—as it did here when the siren was disconnected—the system looks for movement in the house. At 6:26:02 p.m., six minutes after ADT received notice that the alarm was disconnected, ADT received a signal indicating that a door had been tripped.
Officer Charles Griffith (Officer Griffith), a police officer from the Newport News Police Department, arrived at Tam–Davis's house at 6:52 p.m. Upon being led into the house, Officer Griffith immediately detected a strong odor of gas that became stronger as he moved to the kitchen. Officer Griffith observed a lit candle sitting on the counter next to the gas stove in the kitchen, which he blew out. Tam–Davis also testified that she thought she may have been the one to blow the candle out. Either way, there is no testimony to suggest that the candle was not lit at the time Tam–Davis arrived at her home. One of the burners had been taken off of the stove. Officer Griffith noticed that the storage shed was unlocked and testified that the words “you're next” had been scratched into the side. Officer Griffith observed that all doors and windows were secured on the exterior of the house and that the only sign of forced entry was the hole from the storage shed into the bedroom. Captain John Marr, Jr. (Captain Marr), the Deputy Fire Marshal for Newport News, testified, “[The lit candle and turned on gas] was set up to be an explosive device. The gas was cut on to free-flow, a flame-producing device, meaning the candle had been lit and placed in-between the area next to the gas, right-front burner.” Captain Marr said that free-flowing natural gas like that was a very flammable accelerant."
Two days later the husband is caught on camera in a pawn shop pawning the jewelry. The husband is convicted of burglary and larceny and the conviction is upheld on appeal. Who would have thought?????
Good job ADT.
(Case is Claude DAVIS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia)