Ken,

    In Massachusetts, it is a violation of the Mass. General Laws to “secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly records the contents of any wire or oral communications thought the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication…” (MGL ch. 272, Section 99.) I’ll use your disclaimer that, my legal opinion is not expressed in this email.

     Further, there are some exceptions to the above. However, as it applies to commercial central stations in Massachusetts and central stations outside of Mass but providing audio monitoring within this state, the owner’s consent in an alarm contract does not extend to its employees and visitors.

    In fact, there is no exception for trespassers. It also does not provide for an exception in an “alarm condition.”

     I take the position that the MGL does allow for civil and criminal complaints for recording intercom and two-way conversations. Although the person is assenting to the conversation, s/he is not assenting to its recording. Most audio in security is through VoIP. This technology can easily provide automated audio notices of listening/recording taking place. Note that this form of assent seems to be acceptable on telephone conversations. However, it may not be acceptable when audio is being taken from a public place as people don’t have the obligation to leave a public place simply to avoid being listened to or recorded.

    With regard to installing audio devices in a home without getting consent from those other than the owner/signer of the contract, this is likely allowable in dual/multiple consent states IF there are no other adults or employees in the home. I definitely agree with your advice to have employees sign consents to audio and video interception for legal reasons and to inform them of the recordings for practical reasons.

Best,

David J. Coughlin, Esq., Corporate Counsel, Contracts/Risk Manager

Touchcom

***********

Another comment:

***

f.y.i.

listen in is only activated by an alarm.

Antoinette Boilard

alertalarmhawaii

*********

Response:

*********

    I am not aware of any cases where a central station or alarm company have been criminally prosecuted for listening in or recording during an alarm condition.  Anyone have any stories for us?  Unless I hear of any such cases I am still of the opinion that listening and recording during alarm conditions will not lead to criminal or civil exposure.  If it does, I'll get you out when your time is up - no charge.  KK

***********

Comments on competition from police departments / re-programing communicator

*********

Ken,

    Just an FYI that in Texas it is illegal for a municipality to start taking over monitoring. That is a private business, and the government is prohibited by law from such activity.

Gary Dawkins, CEO

Response Center USA

San Antonio, TX 78216

***********

Ken

    With regard to the customer requesting service to re-program an alarm to the local police department is troubling.  The first question I have for the customer is wether or not the terms of the customers contract would be breached by changing to municipal monitoring.  

If the answer is NO then the customer wants to change their status to NON MONITORED ACCOUNT. 

    The service rates for this class of customer is no doubt much higher than a monitored account. (((In effect this customer is becoming a LOCAL ACCOUNT)))). The dealer would then have to charge for the service call and labor involved in re-programming. (((In the event of remote programming, NFPA72 requires an ON SITE person if there is any fire device in the account and proper testing after re-programming.)

    KEN: do you currently have a contract on which the customer could be required to REQUEST you do this type of service?  (((Release from liability over any perils after you are officially only the SERVICE COMPANY etc?))) Re-program to a number supplied by the CUSTOMER while assuming no responsibility for technical support to the PD for interpreting the signals? Establish the NEW SERVICE RATES and TYPES/TIMES of service available to the customer?

Joel Kent

FBN Security Co LLC

**************  You don't need new contract for that.  You write in your Service Contract that you are not providing monitoring and not responsible for communication failure.

*************

Ken:

    I am surprised that the police department wants the liability. When I worked for a major alarm company and years ago we provided a receiver for a few police and sheriff's stations so they can monitor police and fire alarms for some of the larger companies in the area. When one of those cities got a new city attorney, one of the first things he made the do is get rid of the receiving equipment. He felt it was a big liability for the city. One missed alarm and they can be sued. It may be a little different now but I assume the liability is the same.

ACP

***********

Ken:-

    In reply to Kevin from Vermont I would suggest that the first big issue to address is exactly how the police department was able to “take over the telephone line” that he had been paying for.  Frankly Ken you should be hired by Kevin to sue the telephone service provider who allowed the police to take over the line.  While telephone numbers are not literally “owned” by the customer, the customer does have material rights with regard to the line.  Also confidentiality rights were violated by the phone company.

    Between Kevin and a good lawyer, Kevin needs to get control of the telephone line, set up call forwarding to a monitoring station of his choice, and keep the customers that he established over the years.  And he needs to get proper contracts signed with the customers once he has them into a third party station. 

    Kevin has rights and they have been violated!  Go get’em Tiger!

    With regard to the comments by D E A Security Systems Co., Inc. about reprogramming to the police I would suggest that they simply comply with the customers’ request and program the panel to report to a SECOND RECEIVER  that is the number to the police receiver.  In this way the first call goes to the DEA monitoring company and the second call goes to the police.  Charge the customer a nominal $ 5.00 a month for direct reporting to the police and get on with life.

Dave Currie

Damar Security Systems

Sarnia Ontario Canada

***********?

Hmmm. Who will these police departments blame for false alarms now? ;-)

Dusan

**********

Ken,

     Just when you think you have heard it all about police departments here's a new one. There is a town in northern NJ were a police officer is employed in the town and does security work also. While he is on duty and goes to a burglary or break in and if they don't have an alarm system he closes the deal then or the next day. If he response to false alarm calls or multiple alarm calls he tries to sell an upgrade and bashes the existing alarm company. One business owner said they feel intimidated by him and feels pressured to sign up with his services .Isn't this a conflict of interest. And should he be allowed to do such work at least in the same town he works in. It seems like the old days when you pay the crooks for protection, now you got to pay off the cops also.

John

Franklin Alarm