In falsification and intimidation, further providing for the offense of false alarms to agencies of public safety.
SB 175 expands Pennsylvania’s false-alarm offense beyond the current focus on false fire or emergency alarms. The bill would make it a crime to knowingly and intentionally make or cause a false report of a crime or medical or other emergency to a broader set of recipients, including law enforcement, firefighters, fire companies, EMS agencies and providers, 911 system operators, and authorized government employees or contractors. The measure is aimed at false reports that trigger public-safety responses, not just traditional alarm systems.
The bill also authorizes courts to order convicted persons or adjudicated juveniles to reimburse the government for the costs of responding to the false report. It defines those costs broadly to include salaries, overtime, equipment, supplies, and even prosecutorial time spent investigating and prosecuting the offense. For juveniles, the bill adds procedures allowing a court, after notice and hearing, to require a parent or legal guardian with supervisory responsibility to pay part of the outstanding costs if the juvenile cannot, while also allowing modification or cancellation based on financial hardship.
SB 175 further clarifies that the offense applies when the false report originates in Pennsylvania, is intended to end in Pennsylvania, or is intended to reach a person in Pennsylvania. It also gives the Attorney General authority to investigate and prosecute cases involving more than one county or another state, in addition to local district attorneys. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment and would amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically the section on false alarms to agencies of public safety.
The available voting history suggests the bill has received strong support in committee: the Senate Judiciary Committee reported it as committed by a 14-0 vote. No committee transcript is available here, but the unanimous vote indicates broad agreement on the need to update the statute and strengthen reimbursement and enforcement provisions.
The main policy issues raised by the text are the expanded scope of criminal liability, the inclusion of reimbursement for response and prosecution costs, and the juvenile-parent cost-shifting provisions. Potential points of contention include whether the definition of false reports is too broad, whether charging parents for juvenile conduct is appropriate, and whether giving the Attorney General concurrent authority in multi-county or interstate cases is necessary. The committee vote suggests these concerns did not prevent consensus at the committee stage.
The bill would amend 18 Pa.C.S. § 4905, broadening the false-alarm offense to cover knowingly and intentionally false reports of crimes or medical/other emergencies made to a wider range of public-safety recipients. It would also expand court-ordered reimbursement authority, allowing recovery of response costs from offenders and, in juvenile cases, potentially from parents or legal guardians under specified hardship-sensitive procedures. In addition, it would grant the Attorney General concurrent authority to investigate and prosecute multi-county or interstate violations, affecting enforcement practice across Pennsylvania.
The general sentiment appears favorable and pragmatic. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the bill as committed, indicating bipartisan or at least broad committee support for updating the false-alarm statute and ensuring public agencies can recover costs associated with false emergency reports. The absence of recorded opposition in the available vote history suggests the measure was not especially controversial at the committee stage, though the text itself addresses issues that could draw scrutiny later.
The most notable points of contention are likely to center on how far the offense is expanded and who bears the financial burden of false reports. Critics could question whether the new language sweeps in too many kinds of communications or creates overly broad criminal exposure, while supporters would emphasize the need to deter hoaxes and reimburse public-safety agencies. The juvenile provisions may also be debated because they allow courts to shift unpaid costs to parents or guardians, albeit with financial-ability and hardship safeguards. Finally, the Attorney General’s expanded jurisdiction could raise concerns about overlapping authority with local prosecutors, though the bill expressly preserves district attorney powers.