08/18/1999
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
False Alarm Appeal – Gordon and Lynn Hippner
August 18, 1999
Present: Robert J. Surette Assistant City Attorney/Police Legal Advisor
Bill Horne Assistant City Manager
Charles Dunn Police Department
Cheryl Wood Police Department
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
Also Present: Gordon Hippner Appellant
Lynn Hippner Appellant
Appellant Exhibits: None
City Exhibits: 1) Copy of City of Clearwater Alarm User Permit Application #4462
dated 11/08/91, signed by Gordon Hippner
2) Copy of 01/28/99 Courtesy Warning issued to Gordon & Lynn
Hippner
Letter dated 02/01/99, Offense # 9902605
3) Copy of Notice of False Alarm and Notice of Service Charge Letter
dated 3/15/99,
Mr. and Mrs. Hippner’s fine payment for 03/13/99, violation.
4) Copy of Notice of False Alarm and Notice of Service Charge Letter
dated 05/03/99,
Mr. & Mrs. Hippner’s fine payment for 04/30/99, violation.
5) Copy of City Ordinance, Article III, Section 5.41. Definitions
pertaining to Security Alarm Systems
6) Copy of Letter from Lieutenant Nancy Miller dated 04/08/99,
replying to Mrs. Hippner’s 03/26/99 e-mail.
The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. Assistant City Attorney Rob Surrette
reviewed the procedure, indicating the City Manager’s representative will issue a ruling within
10 days.
Police Officer Charles Dunn said he is responsible for maintaining the City’s security
alarm system records. Mr. Surette submitted City Exhibits 1 – 6. Officer Dunn confirmed the
exhibits accurately reflect records on file regarding the alarm permit issued to Gordon and
Lynn Hippner at 2980 Eastland Boulevard. Record of the March 2, 1999, false alarm was
deleted after the Hippners sent a letter to the Police Department, explaining they had been out
of town. The Hippners paid service fees of $30 each for false alarms on March 13, 1999, and
April 30, 1999.
On July 16, 1999, Officer Cheryl Wood responded to a false alarm at the appellants’
property but was unable to check the building closely due to a dog. That false alarm is being
appealed today.
mah0899 1 08/18/99
In response to a question, Officer Dunn said he is not an alarm system expert. He was
unaware any specific alarm system triggers false alarms. False alarms often are caused by
equipment failure, poor maintenance, or lack of a battery backup system. He said residents
must inform the Police Department each time they change alarm companies.
Officer Wood reviewed her response to the July 16, 1999, false alarm. She had
observed no broken windows but did see a dog in the gated yard. No doors were open. After
rechecking the property’s perimeter, she filed a false alarm report. In response to a question,
she said alarm calls trigger heightened awareness of suspicious persons and can endanger
residents and police. Mrs. Hippner called the Police Department approximately 2 hours later
and Officer Wood met with her. Mrs. Hippner had stated the alarm had been activated by a
window facing the street. She said 2 plants sitting on the ground also had been knocked over.
Officer Wood found no pry marks or evidence of a break-in when inspecting the window. Cob
webs on the frame of the screen had not been disturbed. In response to a question, Officer
Dunn suggested the dog could have knocked over the small plants. Mrs. Hippner felt the
screens can be moved without disturbing the cob webs.
Mr. Hippner said the alarm sensor is connected to the window’s screen and is not a
window glass sensor. He did not believe the dog had knocked over the plants. Mr. Surette
referred to the Code, and read the definition of a false alarm.
Mr. Hippner said the alarm company had inspected the system after each false alarm.
The technician had found no defects following the August alarm. The system has battery
backup. He said if any edge of the screen breaks contact with the window, the alarm can go
off. He said the alarm has only gone off when no one is home. He suggested someone could
have tampered with the screens. Mrs. Hippner said following the January alarm, the alarm
company had replaced contact wire. In response to questions, she said they have a swimming
pool service. On March 2, 1999, and March 13, 1999, the alarm company technician had
checked the sensors that later triggered the July 16, 1999, alarm. Her neighbor had reported
soda cans in the courtyard, moved pool furniture, and debris strewn in the yard. Many people
had known the family would be out of town.
Mrs. Hippner said she had paid citations for 2 false alarms that had occurred when she
was overseas. She said after the July 16, 1999, incident, she noticed the sensor wires on one
of the windows were visible. Mr. Hippner said none of the screens had been removed. In
response to a question, Mrs. Hippner said she knew of no one who wanted to burglarize her
home. Her son had been traveling with her.
Mr. Surette read Lieutenant Nancy Miller’s reply to Mrs. Hippner’s March 26, 1999, e-
mail, reviewing all alarm calls to the Hippner residence.
Mrs. Hippner said her family is proactive in the neighborhood and active in the
Neighborhood Watch Program. Mr. Surette felt in the absence of pry marks on windows and
screens, the lack of evidence of suspicious activity, and the testimony heard today, the July
16, 1999, false alarm was due to a mechanical failure.
mah0899 2 08/18/99
Mr. and Mrs. Hippner felt the information submitted by the Police Department contained
discrepancies. Mrs. Hippner said after the July 16, 1999, alarm, she and Officer Wood had
checked only one window. She said on previous alarm calls, her neighbor had argued with the
police that the alarm had not been false. The alarm company had discovered no evidence of
mechanical failure. She said in one instance, a sensor wire on the screened window was
broken. She said evidence of suspicious activity on the property was present after several
alarms.
Mr. Surette concluded the proceeding at 2:43 p.m.
mah0899 3 08/18/99