Loading...
A permit for an alarm system may be revoked if mechanical malfunction or faulty equipment has caused five or more false alarms by such alarm system in the 12-month period immediately preceding the date of notice of a hearing. However, a permit for an alarm system shall be revoked without a hearing if the permit holder fails to pay the service charge within 30 days of receipt of notice to pay for a false alarm. A protest may be filed and if, at a subsequent hearing as provided in § 1098.22, the Safety Director or his or her designee determines that no service charge is due, the city shall refund the same. “Mechanical malfunction” and “faulty equipment” shall not relate, for purposes of this section, to false alarms caused by human error or an act of God. A permit shall not be revoked if the permit holder shows that since the most recent false alarm from such alarm system, the system has been repaired, and the Police Department or the Fire Department has inspected such alarm system and found it to have been properly repaired.
(Ord. 15-87, passed 2-9-1987)
(a) Prior to the revocation of a permit for an alarm system, written notice shall be given to the permit holder. Such notice shall set forth:
(1) The specific date on which there have been false alarms from such alarm system which were caused by mechanical malfunction or faulty equipment;
(2) That a hearing will be held before the Safety Director or his or her designated representative to determine whether the permit for such alarm system should be revoked;
(3) The date, time and place of such hearing; and
(4) That the permit holder may appear in person and/or be represented by counsel, may present testimony and may cross-examine all witnesses.
(b) All hearings shall be held by the Safety Director or his or her designated representative. The official conducting the hearing shall be referred to as the Hearing Officer. The Safety Director shall not designate any person to perform the duties of Hearing Officer under this section who has participated in the investigation of false alarms from the alarm site in question or has prior knowledge of the allegations or circumstances discovered in such investigation. The person designated as Hearing Officer may, prior to the hearing, receive a copy of the notice given to the permit holder.
(c) A representative of the Law Director shall be present at such hearing to advise the Hearing Officer as to procedural matters; however, such attorney shall not partake in any determination of the facts.
(d) All hearings shall be conducted under rules consistent with the nature of the proceedings, provided, however, that the following rules shall apply to such hearings:
(1) All parties shall have the right to representation by a licensed attorney, though an attorney is not required;
(2) Each party may present witnesses in his or her own behalf;
(3) Each party has the right to cross-examine all witnesses; and
(4) Only evidence presented before the Hearing Officer at such hearing may be considered in rendering the order.
(e) If the permit holder fails to appear at the hearing at the time, place and date specified, the city shall present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case showing that mechanical malfunction or faulty equipment has caused five or more false alarms in the 12-month period immediately preceding the date of the notice of hearing.
(f) If the Hearing Officer finds that grounds exist for revocation of the permit for the alarm system, he or she shall revoke such permit and shall give written notice to the permit holder of such revocation. Upon receipt of such notice, the permit holder shall disconnect such alarm system immediately and shall surrender his or her permit to the Safety Director or his or her designee.
(g) If the Hearing Officer does not find that grounds exist for revocation of the permit for an alarm system, he or she shall give written notice of such finding to the permit holder.
(Ord. 15-87, passed 2-9-1987)
After a permit for an alarm system has been revoked, the person in control of the property on which the alarm system is located may request that an inspection be made pursuant to § 1098.24 after the alarm system has been repaired. Such inspection shall be made by the Police Department or the Fire Department as soon as possible after receiving the request, but, in any event, not later than ten regular working days after the person making the request has complied with § 1098.24. If, upon such inspection, it is found that the alarm system has been properly repaired, the person in control of the property may apply for a new permit for such alarm system.
(Ord. 15-87, passed 2-9-1987)
(a) A person may request that the city make an inspection of the alarm system if:
(1) Mechanical malfunction or faulty equipment has caused five or more false alarms in the 12-month period immediately preceding such request; or
(2) The permit for such system has been revoked.
(b) To request an inspection, the person in control of the property shall submit to the Safety Director or his or her designee:
(1) Evidence as to the cause of such false alarms;
(2) Evidence that the mechanical malfunction or faulty equipment has been repaired by a person qualified to make such repairs; and
(3) An inspection fee as provided in Chapter 208 of the Administration Code - the General Fee Schedule.
(c) Upon receipt of such request for inspection, the Safety Director or his or her designee shall forward such request to the Police Department or the Fire Department within three working days, and an inspection of such alarm system shall be made by the Department within ten working days thereafter.
(Ord. 15-87, passed 2-9-1987)
Whoever violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a minor misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $100 for each offense.
Each permit holder and each person having control over property on which an alarm system is installed has an affirmative duty to comply with all provisions of this chapter and it shall not be a defense to prosecution of such person that he or she was acting without a culpable mental state.
(Ord. 15-87, passed 2-9-1987)