08/12/1998ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
False Alarm Appeal - Nasser and Annette Vafadar
August 12, 1998
Present: Keith Ashby Chief of Staff
Robert J. Surette Assistant City Attorney/Police Legal Advisor
Charles Dunn Patrol Support Officer
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
Nasser Vafadar Appellant
Annette Vafadar Appellant
Appellant Exhibits: None.
City Exhibits: 1. a) Alarm User Registration 2953 Atwood Drive - permit #9041;
b) Offense #9801154 - Courtesy warning, per January 13,
1998, incident;
c) Incident report #9801154;
d) Citation #01912 - notice of false alarm and notice of service
charge, per July 15, 1998, incident;
e) and Incident report #9818960
2. Certified Copy of Sections 5.41, 5.42, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45, 5.46,
5.47, 5.61, 5.62, and 5.63 of current City Code of Ordinance
. dealing with security alarm systems.
Chief of Staff Keith Ashby, representing City Manager Michael Roberto, called the
meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
Patrol Support Officer Charles Dunn said he is in charge of the City's security alarm
program and custodian of related records. He reported the Police Department had
responded to false alarms at 2953 Atwood Drive on January 13, 1998, and July 15, 1998.
He testified the courtesy warning for the January 13, 1998, false alarm was mailed to
Nasser Vafadar on January 22, 1998. The reports state the alarms had been caused by
human error, not weather conditions. Both reports indicate Appellant Nasser Vafadar had
reported that his father/father-in-law had tripped the alarm accidentally each time.
Mr. Vafadar stated he had never received a false alarm warning for the January
incident. The police officer, who had responded to the alarm, did not issue a citation but
provided Officer Dunn's business card and directed Mr. Vadafar to contact the officer and
obtain the required permit. Mr. Vafadar said when he telephoned Officer Dunn, he was
informed that the City provides one courtesy warning per year for each alarm system
permit and that the year begins the day the permit is issued. Officer Dunn said he does not
recall speaking with Mr. Vafadar in January. He doubted he would have provided that
inaccurate information as he has headed the alarm system program for years.
Mr. Vafadar said he should not be fined for the July incident as the City had
provided him with confusing information. He complained Officer Dunn had tried to
0 mah0898 1 08/12/98
persuade him not to appeal the fine by saying he would lose. Officer Dunn said, as a
courtesy, he had contacted Mr. Vafadar to waive the fine had the false alarms been caused
by circumstances beyond the family's control, such as a break-in. He said Mr. Vafadar had
stated both incidents had been caused by a family member. Officer Dunn said he had
advised Mr. Vafadar that fines are not waived when family members have mishaps with
alarm systems. He said he had not discouraged Mr. Vafadar from exercising his appeal
rights. As this issue refers to customer service, Mr. Ashby said he would discuss that with
the Vafadars after the hearing. Mr. Vafadar said his wife had taken time off work to
submit the appeal and pay the $25.00 fee. He said his wife also missed work to attend
today's meeting.
Officer Dunn said courtesy warnings stand even if permits are obtained afterwards.
He said the Vafadar's alarm system should have been permitted at the time of installation.
Annette Vafadar said they would not have appealed the $30.00 fine had they received the
courtesy warning. She expressed concern the letter had not been mailed certified. She
said staff had indicated the January alarm would be taken off the record.
Assistant City Attorney Robert Surette reviewed Section 5.46 - service charge for
false alarms. The language states a courtesy warning must be issued but does not require
its receipt. He said the City is not obligated to extend courtesy warnings. He noted the
appellant had admitted that two false alarms had occurred at 2953 Atwood Drive within a
year. Mr. Nasser reiterated that staff had advised him the first false alarm would not count
after he had asked specifically about the January incident.
days.
Mr. Ashby will consider the information presented today and respond within 10
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
Chief of Staff
0 mah0898 2 08/12/98