George Hinds: Sheriff’s alarm-response policy leaves public at risk

Re “County alarm policies different than new Merced ones” (Page 3A, Aug. 8): In the Sun-Star article on the county alarm policy, Sheriff Vern Warnke attempts to defend a flawed policy he implemented.

A friend’s house was burglarized. I am second on the call list and was out of town at an event where my cellphone was in silent mode. The alarm company called the Sheriff’s Department, but no one responded because of the policy. Imagine the following scenario: You’re being held at gunpoint due in a home invasion robbery. The alarm company calls, but you can’t answer. The next person on the call list is at a movie. Per department policy, no officer responds.

I thought public safety was No. 1 with law enforcement! I don’t understand why a deputy cannot respond to an alarm unless he or she has a higher priority call. The sheriff has a door-hanger notice that can be placed on a property to notify homeowners about their response. Is this being used? The county adopted an alarm policy; why is Sheriff Warnke allowed to implement procedures that ignore it? His policy puts the public’s safety and property at risk.

This story was originally published August 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM with the headline "George Hinds: Sheriff’s alarm-response policy leaves public at risk."