|
A security manual
published by BOMA (Business Owners & Managers Association) in
1995 states that tenant notification need not occur following an
adverse event--but that a memo of the "better safe than
sorry" variety might be appropriate. I strongly disagree with
responding in this vague manner and highly recommend that a
reasonable effort be made by management to communicate to tenants
the specific nature of any adverse event which indicates increased
risk.
Regrettably, however, there is no foolproof way of notifying tenants
of increased risk. Obviously in many cases, other tenants will
become aware of adverse events through police presence or routine
gossip. I feel, however, that management should additionally make a
reasonable effort to inform tenants of such an event.
Reasonable is the keyword here and there are no standards regarding
methodology. While it might appear that a written notification or
warning placed under the door of each apartment--or placing notices
in common areas such as laundry rooms--might be superior to attempts
to verbally notify tenants, historically this has not necessarily
proven to be the case.
In two separate Michigan cases where notices were placed under
tenants' doors, tenants who were subsequently sexually assaulted and
brought suit alleged they had been previously unaware of the
increased risk. In one case, Nightengale v Meadows Apartments,
the tenant claimed to never have received such notification of a
prior sexual assault, while in the other, Taylor v Charter
Oaks, the tenant acknowledged that she may have found a
notice under her door which offered free security upgrading, but
probably took it to be junk mail from management and threw it in the
trash without reading it.
Obviously, the knowledge of increased risk may often encourage some
tenants to become more security conscious. While they might have
been quite cavalier in locking up in the past, they may begin double
checking their doors and windows before retiring. Others may feel
additional hardware is appropriate and, while it is not necessarily
the duty of apartment management to provide this hardware at cost,
management should certainly not prohibit the tenant from
professionally hardening or upgrading at his or her expense. Some,
of course, can be expected to ignore such a notification.
When an adverse event has occurred and management has made
reasonable efforts to notify tenants, these actions should be
documented in writing. Such documentation should include any steps
taken, even if management simply advised tenants who were observed
about the complex verbally. Such documentation can prove valuable in
defending a lawsuit should a future adverse event occur.
It should be clearly stated that notification of tenants is
recommended only in cases where events have occurred which indicate
that risk has increased for other tenants. For instance, if a tenant
is assaulted by an estranged spouse, this event would not
necessarily signal that exposure has increased for anyone except for
the victim of this assault.
Likewise mysterious disappearances from within individual apartments
are no different than such incidents in single-family homes. Often
missing items are simply mislaid and are subsequently found. In
other cases, such losses are the result of petty thefts by one of
the residents of the specific apartment--a roommate or family
member--or by a dishonest person whom the apartment dweller has
previously provided with a key to the premises.
Additionally, reported events which lack credibility need not be
considered as warnings of increased risk.
For instance, in one case an elderly tenant, who claimed she
frequently found furniture rearranged in her apartment, solved this
mystery when she established that mischievous aliens were coming out
of her television set during certain programs. She resolved the
issue by avoiding these shows. In another case, a young female, who
had excessively imbibed of alcohol at a wedding reception, awoke in
the early morning hours and found that a naked man was strolling
about in her apartment. She called the police and when they arrived,
she explained that the man had already left, exiting through the
sliding glass door--after locking it from the inside on his way out.
She then admitted she must have been dreaming. In another case, a
female reported that someone had rifled through her underwear drawer
and taken one of her more exotic pieces of lingerie and in still
another, a tenant just had a "feeling" someone was in his
apartment when he was out.
Obviously, reports such as these would not be taken as credible
unforced intrusion events by reasonable persons and reporting them
to other tenants would do nothing but make the reporting tenant the
subject of mirth and scorn. In fact, reporting such incidents to
other tenants could result in exposure to liable or slander
litigation by the tenants who reported such bizarre events.
3. Advise Tenants of Countermeasures and Obtain Written
Acknowledge
The responsibility of apartment management is to provide tenants
with locking devices and hardware which is appropriate and adequate
for the foreseeable exposure in the specific environment. However,
management has no responsibility or means for ensuring that tenants
will always properly use the security devices provided. The greatest
exposure in apartment complexes is generally caused by the tenants
themselves.
In low crime areas, many apartment dwellers, like many home owners,
frequently forget to lock their doors and windows. In one case, for
instance, immediately following a home invasion in an 88 unit
apartment building, police found the back doors of 8 - 10 other
units to be unlocked. Police entered these apartments to warn
tenants who were asleep in their beds.
Often, too, tenants may assume closed doors are locked when they are
not.
In other cases, tenants may lock basic low security door locks, but
not bother to secure any higher security deadbolt locks provided.
Likewise, tenants may regularly use the thumb latches on sliding
glass doors and windows, but neglect to secure charley bars,
secondary locks--or not bother to place rods or dowels provided by
apartment management in the channel of the door frames.
In a Delaware case, Kahn v Jupiter Western et al, a
home invader and sexual predator gained entrance to a town house
unit by kicking in the door of the apartment. The tenant claimed
this easy access was obtained because the deadbolt was improperly
installed and there was less than a one inch throw, which is the
minimum standard. While this allegation concerning installation
deficiency was, in fact, accurate, it proved to be irrelevant
because the police photos of the damaged door frame clearly
indicated that the deadbolt was not engaged at the time of the
forced entry.
In a Michigan case, Neff v Harbor Towne Apartments, an
intruder gained entrance to an apartment via a sliding glass door
and sexually assaulted a tenant. This plaintiff readily admitted she
hadn't used the secondary lock on this door since it was
inconvenient and she felt the thumb latch should have been
sufficient. In many other cases, plaintiffs have admitted that they
did not utilize the deadbolts provided, but claimed they thought
that the spring locks or key-in-knob locks should have been
sufficient to prevent the entry of intruders, since they had not
been advised otherwise.
In addition to acknowledging that they understand the operation and
necessity of utilizing all countermeasures provided, tenants should
also confirm in writing that they understand that it is their
responsibility to advise management should any of the locks or
countermeasures cease to operate correctly.
By requiring that tenants sign a form confirming that they
understand how all the locks in their apartments operate and they
are responsible for reporting deficiencies--and specifically
acknowledging that they understand that their apartments are
vulnerable to intrusion unless all deadbolts are secured on all
doors in addition to the basic door locks--and that any sliding
glass doors and windows should be considered insecure even when
locked unless charley bars, channel dowels, or other secondary
devices provided are additionally locked--careless tenants who
become victims of crime may be unable to prevail in a premises
liability lawsuit.
Additionally, such a form might clearly state that the tenant has
been advised that he or she may install additional security devices
at the apartment, but that management must be informed prior to such
installation and, if relevant, be provided with a key for any new
locks.
The Underwriters Laboratory standard for key locks requires that
locks provide ten minutes of protection from lock-picking,
plug-drilling and rotary force. Thus, even high quality locks can be
circumvented by intruders who possess burglary skills. For this
reason, apartment management might consider providing deadbolts
without exterior keyholes--or recommending that tenants consider
adding such devices at their own expense. By installing these
keyless deadbolts, the risk of having a lock picked or otherwise
circumvented is virtually eliminated. Additionally this would
prevent entry by an intruder using a lost or stolen key while
tenants were present and eliminate claims that an intruder must have
gained access by using a master key.
Obviously, due to fire safety concerns, deadbolts requiring a key to
open from the inside should never be used. Locks of this type are
illegal in most venues.
4. Consider a Risk Analysis/Security Survey
Security surveys are not normally conducted at apartment complexes
and it is certainly not an industry standard that such inspections
occur. However, security surveys can significantly limit risk to
tenants and minimize exposure in the event of negligent security and
premises liability litigation. There are four basic types of
security surveys:
Public Sector Security Surveys
Security Securitys by Private Sector Security Consultants
Security Surveys by Apartment Management
Gratis Security Surveys by Guard Services, Alarm Contractors and
other Providers:
The follow describes these four types of surveys along with the pros
and cons of each:
Public Sector Security Surveys:
Many police departments have community service units or crime
prevention sections staffed by officers who are experienced and
skilled in conducting basic security surveys of apartment complexes,
as well as single-family residences and small businesses. There is
normally no charge for this service.
Typically, these officers use checklist forms during their surveys
and they usually provide the apartment management with a brief
written report of their conclusions. These reports are usually
short, but to the point. They generally include reasonable
recommendations to minimize any excessive risk noted and address
applicable security standards and city codes.
Pros and Cons of Public Sector Security Surveys:
If this service is available, apartment management should
unquestionably take advantage of it. There is usually no monetary
outlay and no downside whatsoever; and the report provided will be
beneficial in identifying any previously unrecognized risks while
recommending appropriate and reasonable countermeasures in the event
any upgrading is warranted. Obviously, following such an analysis,
apartment management should implement any upgrading recommended in a
timely manner.
|
|
