[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 6347

March 17, 1986

ALARM SYSTEMS:

Licensing, regulating, or imposing sanctions upon alarm system contractors by city

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS:

Authority to license, regulate, or impose sanctions upon alarm system contractors

A city is without authority to adopt an ordinance licensing, regulating, or imposing sanctions upon alarm system contractors.

Honorable William Faust

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion regarding a proposed city ordinance to license and regulate the installation of burglar alarm systems. Your question may be stated as follows:

Does a city have the authority to adopt an ordinance requiring city licensure of alarm system contractors installing, leasing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, servicing, or responding to alarm systems?

The proposed ordinance excepts fire alarm devices and refers generally to burglar alarms; a $15.00 annual license fee is imposed; a $100.00 bond is required to be posted and maintained; a $25.00 civil assessment is levied against the alarm installer for each false alarm responded to by city police (in excess of four per annum), nonpayment of which results in revocation of the license and deduction from the posted bond; and certain other requirements or restrictions are also imposed.

The licensure and regulation of alarm systems, except fire alarms, their installation, maintenance, repair, etc., are governed by the Private Security Guard Act of 1968, MCL 338.1051 et seq; MSA 18.185(1) et seq. MCL 338.1055; MSA 18.185(5), provides:

'The department [of state police], upon proper application and upon being satisfied that the applicant is qualified, shall issue the applicant a license to conduct business as an alarm system contractor or a private security guard or agency for a period of 2 years from date of issuance. Upon the issuance of a license to conduct business as an alarm system contractor or a private security guard or agency, the applicant shall not be required to obtain any other license from a municipality or political subdivision of this state.' [Emphasis added.]

See also, OAG, 1981-1982, No 6076, p 675 (June 15, 1982), which concluded:

'It is my opinion, therefore, that a city may not license a burglar alarm system contractor installing alarm systems to which the police are expected to respond after the state has licensed the contractor.' [Emphasis added.]

The ordinance provision dealing with excessive false alarms should be considered in light of MCL 338.1085; MSA 18.185(35), which provides:

'(1) As used in this section 'false alarm' means the activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, or the negligence of the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of his employee or agent. False alarm does not include an alarm caused by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or other violent condition beyond the control of the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of their employee or agent.

'(2) An alarm system experiencing more than 4 false alarms within a calendar year is deemed defective and upon written notice to the owner or lessee of the alarm system by the enforcing authority the owner or lessee shall have the system inspected by an alarm system contractor who shall within 15 days file a written report to the department of the results of its inspection of the system, the probable cause of the false alarms, and its recommendations for eliminating false alarms.

'(3) Upon receipt of the report the department may after notice and hearing order the owner or lessee to correct the system based upon the recommendations contained in the report.'

The authority to regulate with regard to excessive false alarms is conferred by the statute upon the Department of State Police, which has the power to hold hearings and to require the correction of malfunctional systems to eliminate false alarms. MCL 338.1085; MSA 18.185(35). As a sanction for violation or noncompliance with the Private Security Guard Act of 1968, MCL 338.1060; MSA 18.185(10), provides that licenses are subject to revocation.

MCL 338.1055; MSA 18.185(5), is expressly preemptive of local regulation as to the licensing, regulating or imposing sanctions upon alarm system contractors. Preemption may occur where state law is expressly preemptive; by the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme; by legislative history; and when the nature of the subject matter regulated may demand exclusive state regulation to achieve the uniformity necessary to serve the state's purpose or interest. People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314; 257 NW2d 902 (1977), cert den, 435 US 1008; 98 S Ct 1879; 56 L Ed 2d 390 (1978). The subject legislation is expressly preemptive and the nature of the subject matter demands exclusive state regulation.

The ordinance also contains a provision requiring the approval of the city's chief of police when an alarm system initiates telephone connection with the city police department. A comparable provision is included in the Private Security Guard Act of 1968, MCL 338.1053; MSA 18.185(3). This element of local control is available to local units of government by virtue of the statute.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a city does not have the authority to adopt an ordinance licensing, regulating, or imposing sanctions upon alarm system contractors.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]