"At this time, I believe the only technologies acceptable to law enforcement are audio and video verification," said Don Young, chief information officer at Protection 1, and president of PPVAR, which has been gathering best practices for verified response.
"Those are the only ones I'm aware of that allow you to say you're witnessing a crime in progress."
But the conversation around what qualifies as a verified alarm often extends beyond the boundaries of video and audio verification.
Some believe that enhanced call verification and cross-zoning should also be included in a comprehensive standard.
isn't one of them.
a "huge fan" of cross-zoning and ECV as tools for reducing false alarms and driving down total alarm volume, he
does not believe they merit inclusion under the definition of verification.
"There's no realistic opportunity to tell a 911 dispatcher or a responding officer that I'm witnessing a crime in progress because multiple zones were tripped during an alarm event," Young
The concerted emphasis on collaborating with law enforcement may be the most defining element of the latest push for a comprehensive standard.
This is important when it comes to written standards, which, according to Young
, are critically dependent upon law enforcement buy-in.
"Given the dependency alarm verification has on law enforcement's interpretation of what is or isn't a priority event, I can't imagine developing a verification standard without significant representation and feedback from them in the process," Young
said, adding that PPVAR
has made a point of enlisting a number of law enforcement leaders to provide input into the development of best practices.
Law enforcement, he
added, is "done with hearing our industry talk about how we're going to stop having their officers respond through the use of ECV or cross-zoning."