The first article describes the efforts of a committee composed of police and private security dealers in Connecticut to reduce the high number of false alarms which were playing havoc with police manpower and equipment. Because a small percentage of alarms cause a large proportion of false alarms, Connecticut police chiefs are trying to monitor false alarms and notify users of the problem. Some communities have passed ordinances mandating fines after a certain number of false alarms have been received. Another discussion of the false alarm problem summarizes a survey conducted by the Danbury, Conn. police which produced sufficient data to request a new city ordinance. This statute defined responsibilities of police and alarm system users and established fines levied after the third false alarm and for intentional misuse. After public hearings and some modifications from local alarm companies, the ordinance was passed in early 1981. A municipal judge from New Jersey notes that law enforcement agencies have been reluctant to become involved with private security needs and discusses the advantages of licensing private security forces. Differences between public versus private security responsibilities are also detailed, such as private guards not being subject to laws of evidence and search and seizure. A subsequent article also addresses both different and shared goals of private guards and police officers, emphasizing the need for tighter guard screening processes. The final two articles examine the Los Angeles Transit Police and the U.S. Air Force Security Police, including their staffing patterns, training, responsibilities, and cooperation with other law enforcement organizations.