CrimeTek Security Services

Review: CrimTek Security was hired here at our developement to provide security service. 1.) First incident 3 phone calls were made to CrimTek to get a security guard ([redacted] on duty that night.) It took him over 26 minutes to arrive on the scene. Modesto P.D (Short handed as they are.)were alredy here finishing their report before security guard/[redacted] arrived. He said he had just gotten the call and didn't hear the previous 2 calls from dispatch. COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT HE HAD HIS I-POD EAR BUDS IN!!!!!!! He stayed only 2 minutes and left not even getting the residents information/who was being interview by the MPD Officer. The MPD Officer asked if that was our security guard and we said yes. The Officer had been sniffing the air around the security guard/[redacted]. I ask my neighbor what was going on and he said that the security guard smelled of DOPE. No wonder he left the scene so fast!!!! I thought it was because I asked him couldn't he hear the calls over his ear buds/music????? I reported the ear buds/music issue at the Annual Homeowners Meeting in November to the CrimTek Security Supervisor/I think his name was Office Sweeter. Even at this Homeowners Meeting the Board President confirmed he wore his I-pod ear buds and listened to music while on duty at the L-41 Site. ISN'T THIS AGAINST CRIMTEK COMPANY POLICY???? I didn't say anything about the drug issue that night, because I didn't want to get him/[redacted] into more trouble. I told this to a Board member about the dope/drug issue only to be told by the GPHA Board member that she had caught him smoking dope on site and reported it to the Board. Is it CRIMTEK COMPANT POLICY TO ALLOW DRUG USE AT WORK????? What are we paying for here??? I again reported this on 06/06/13 to Officer R. McCasland at a Board meeting and he said he would put it in his report. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/I REQUESTED THAT REPORT FROM CRIMTEK OWNER ED ESMILI on 06/07/13----STILL WAITING FOR THE REPORT----ALTHOUGH HE/ED ESMILI STATED HE WAS LOOKING AT IT ON HIS DESK

Product_Or_Service: Security Guard Service

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

[redacted]Drug test all CrimTek employees who work our site regulally.[redacted]No I-pod ears buds/music while at work.[redacted]Since this employee [redacted] has also been comfirmed as a user by other CrimTek employees,why is he still working here???? Is he related to someone or is someone covering for him. HAVE HIM DRUG TESTED ASAP---If he comes back positive remove him from employment.[redacted]Provide me with a copy of the CRIMTEK SECURITY REPORT done by Office R. McCasland for the GPHA MEETING 06/06/13

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response

Response:

I Just received your complaint in the mail today 6/21/2013. I am sorry that it has come to this point that we have to go through this process to resolve this matter. But I am also glad that Revdex.com is involved to observe, investigate and report all facts.

Before I start responding to the complaint I would like to give you a little history on our length of relation with GPHA. Crimetek has been providing security services for GPHA for over 6 years. Officer [redacted] as named in the complaint has been working as a security officer at GPHA for over 3 years. We have worked closely with the property management company responsible for this association.

Our procedure:

All incidents and events logged by our officers and our dispatch/ Call center get forwarded to the property management company and to the property manager responsible to oversee these matters. We have been contracted to follow certain procedures to have one point of contact for the members (the property manager). Our dispatch center will receive emergency service calls and will dispatch an officer to the location needed.

If there are any complaints against officers, we receive a notification from the property manger. This could be in form of a phone call or an email or a fax. In any case we pay immediate attention to this matter and resolve the issues at once.

when we receive a call from a resident the officer is dispatched to the location needed, if the situation reported is suspicious or it requires police involvement, the matter gets handed over to the Police authorities as soon as they arrive on scene and the site officer will resume his patrol duties. Crimetek and all officers working for Crimetek are licensed through Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) this means that the company and all officers have been background checked through FBI and DOJ prior to receiving a license from BSIS.

That said, I will respond to the first part of the complaint titled 1.) First incident.

The incident in question is not identified by any date or time or location or the nature of call, why security was needed? and why Police was called? Since we have never received a complaint until 6/21/2013 in regards to this incident, we have not been aware of any problems. Reading further into the complaint, Mr. [redacted] mentions it was brought up in the annual members meeting in November, I used this time frame to investigate any service calls our dispatch center had received prior to November of 2012 (approximately 8 months ago) not sure if the November in question was in 2012 or in years prior. the only log entry I was able to extract from our system that somewhat resembled the incident mentioned above that involved Mr. [redacted] is the following:

11/06/2012

2135 hours, The resident from [redacted] Ct. called to report a subject on the roof of houses in the area.

2139 hours, L-41 Officer ([redacted]) reports that he is in the area.

2143 hours, L-41 Officer ([redacted]) reports that he is unable to locate subjects on rooftops in the area. Officer ([redacted]) spoke to the resident who reported the incident, she states that she heard two males on the roof of her house.

2147 hours, L-41 Officer ([redacted]) reports that PD is on site. Officer ([redacted]) reports that he was talking with [redacted] when he seen Raccoons crossing the street from the area of the houses.

In this entry officer ([redacted]) arrived on scene 4 minutes after the call came. He was clearly there before the Police unit arrived and spoke with Mr. [redacted]. I don't have a police report for this incident since no crime had occurred and no one reported a crime I don't think there will be a police report but there will be a log entry that can be tracked if Modesto Police Department is contacted.

Is Mr. [redacted] Referring to this incident or another?

I am more than willing to investigate this further to get to an answer even though it is very unusual for someone to complain about an incident months later with extremely vague information.

Crimetek has never received a complaint from anyone at the association including the property manager in regards to this incident.

Ear Buds;

If officer [redacted] was using ear buds he has violated Crimetek policies, but as I mentioned before our office has not received any complaints in this regard until today. Officer [redacted] is aware of our policies.

Drug Allegation:

I resent the following question:

Is it Crimetek Company Policy to allow drug use at work?????

I take this as a great insult to myself my company and to my hardworking employees. Mr. [redacted] is clearly accusing Crimetek of having a company policy that allows Drug use at work.

Is Mr. [redacted] accusing all Crimetek Employees of using drugs?

I demand a written apology from Mr. [redacted] for making such baseless accusations or I will submit Mr. [redacted]'s written comments to our attorney for further resolution.

What is Mr. [redacted]'s intent? To wrongfully smear the name of a business that has been providing security services in this county for the past 14 years. A company that has over 200 hard working employees trying to provide for their families.

Our employees are drug tested periodically and we pride our selves in having a drug free environment. If we suspect any employees of using drugs, we take disciplinary actions immediately.

Mr. [redacted] claims he did not want to get [redacted] into trouble that's why he did not say anything.

Why wait 8 months to bring this up? What was he waiting for?

6/6/2013

GPHA Meeting incident

On 6/6/2013 GPHA held a meeting at the properties club house for members to attend. As per the policies of the HOA each member is entitled to 3 minutes of talk time in front of the HOA board of directors.

Officer Mccasland (name mentioned in complaint) was on duty as per the request of the property manager.

During the meeting Officer [redacted] asked one of the members (subject A) to leave the premises since the member went over the 3 minute limit and was refusing to comply with procedures and policies and was clearly disrupting the order of the meeting. Police was called, the matter was defused and meeting ended.

6/7/2013

Mr. [redacted]'s call to Crimetek

On 6/7/2013 I received a call, the person on the phone immediately asked me if I was aware of what had happened the day before?

I asked for his name, he introduced himself as [redacted].

I asked where he was calling from? He said "from his Home".

I asked if he could tell me what property he was calling from?

Just to clarify, we receive many calls during a day from different properties. Our first intention is to find out where the caller is calling from.

Mr. [redacted] immediately went into asking me if I had gotten the police report about the incident at the meeting?

I said no I did not have it. I asked if he had it, which he said no but he had a case number.

He asked if I had the incident report from officer [redacted] I said yes I have it.

He said he wanted the report. I told him that he has to contact the property manager since the report was already submitted to the management company.

At that point he said that he will report Crimetek to the Revdex.com and hung up the phone.

Mr. [redacted] is familiar with the process, he was a board member at GPHA at one time, he knows all reports must come from the property manager. And he knows all complaints must go to the manger as well.

The report he mentions in his complaint was not what he asked for when he called. He specifically asked for the report on the incident that occurred the night before during 6/6/2013 meeting I still don't know why he called our office to get the report when he knows the procedure.

I understand Mr. [redacted] is in some disagreement with the current board of directors, I don't know what its about. It does not involve Crimetek. But I will investigate further and will get further information on why he is not on the board of directors anymore.

I will be more than happy to provide you with further information if requested.

Sincerely

EE

Consumer's Final Response

After talking to the orginal caller to CrimTek (A seventyish widow/who made the first 2 calls to CrimTek/to get Officer [redacted] to respond.) I made the 3rd call at the request of my neighbor (SHE THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T RESPONDING TO HER CALLS) to CrimTek/dispatcher stated that the officer at GPHA site hand't responded to dispatches 2 other calls now this was the 3rd call to get Officer [redacted] to respond. My neighbor confirmed that he/[redacted] didn't arrive till 28 minutes later and that the police were at the her house well before Officer [redacted] arrived.

Also on the morning after this incident the neighbor at [redacted] (SHE MADE THE FIRST 2 CALLS TO CRIMTEK) called [redacted] at Liberty Property Management and filed a formal complaint about CrimTek/Officer [redacted]. Even [redacted] asked me at the Annual Homeowners Meeting what was [redacted] responce -- He said he never heard the first 2 calls for assistance -- I asked him couldn't you hear the calls from dispatch through your ear-buds/they were dangling out from the collar of his CrimTek jacket. At the same meeting that night the GPHA President confirmed to the CrimTek representatve present that Officer [redacted] wore ear-buds and listened to music while at work. The CrimTek representative comfirmed that it was against CrimTek policy to wear ear-buds and listen to music while on duty. Also the CrimTek representative stated that Officer/[redacted] was a CrimTek employee not a GPHA employee. HOW CAN YOU HEAR DISPATCH CALLING FOR ASSISTANCE WHEN THE OFFICER HAS HIS EAR BUDS IN LISTENING TO MUSIC WHILE ON DUTY. ---I personally have seen him remove both ear-buds from his ears while on duty.

My poor frightened neighbor called me to protect her and call CrimTek for the 3rd time to get assistance. She also did call Liberty Property Management the next morning to file a complaint against CrimTek/Officer [redacted] at Liberty Property Management confirmed this at the Annual GPHA Meeting in November 2012.

Mr [redacted] you should follow-up with [redacted] Property Mangement/Managing Agents for GPHA regarding the complaint against CrimTek/Officer [redacted].

Also my neighbor would be happy to confirm what happen that night with CrimTek/Officer [redacted]. The comment to me today was it took him over 28 minutes to respond to the first call and that the Modesto Police Department were finishing the investigation before CrimTek/Office [redacted] arrived.

Business' Final Response

I apologize for the delay in rebuttal, I have been waiting for the board president and the management company to confirm Mr. [redacted]'s story.

Unfortunately, after speaking with the board president as Mr. [redacted] Recommended in the ending portion of his complaint, I was told by the president "they were aware of officer [redacted] using ear buds, she has talked to him about them she mentioned one of the ear buds does not work and he uses the other to answer his phone calls since he rides a bicycle while on duty. Just to point our some details, all officers at this site ride a bicycle provided by the company so that they can get around the site faster. As I mentioned the president mentioned they have been aware of the earbud used by officer [redacted] and they dont have a problem with it, that is why they have not complained to crimetek about it. There has been no complaints from the HOA Board of Directore and From the management in regards to earbuds worn by officer [redacted]. if Mr. [redacted] has proof of that maybe he should approach the board of directors, Crimetek has not received any complaints from the client's management.

I also inquired about the 3 phone call incident, the president told me that she knew where officer [redacted] was prior to the phone calls and it took him roughly about 4 minutes to respond to the calls. She mentioned that no one in the meeting questioned why it took officer [redacted] so long to get there, because he was there withing 4 minutes and that was never an issue.

Crimetek's call log also reports that Office [redacted] was on site within 4 minutes of receiving the calls. and that Police arrived afterwards.

Mr. [redacted], Nothing in your story can be verified. One thing for sure, if there had been a complaint about any of this, Crimetek would have known about it. No one from the management and from the board of directors of your HOA has submitted any complaints in regards to the matters you are bringing up. And after my investigation, No one from the management and the Hoa can confirm anything about your story.

Crimetek can confirm the calls were received and also can confirm that officer [redacted] responded within 4 minutes. Mr. [redacted] even if you were able to provide a letter from the management in regards to complaints submitted by your neighbor and by you.The fact remains that Crimetek did not receive anything. No diciplinary action was required, the president of the board mentioned, she has even listened to the earbud officer [redacted] is using and one of them does not work and the other one is being used while he rides the bicycle to answer his phone calls or make phone calls during emergencies. And they dont have a problem with that.