Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Multiple burglaries at Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
PAburglarytimely warninghigh confidence
Compare →
Under Investigation

Pennsylvania College of Technology Police published a campus alert. Full text recovered.

Alerts
1
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Pennsylvania College of Technology
Technical College · PA
All Penn College cases →
~5,000 studentsPenn College Police Campus Alert / Timely Warning
Official alert policy
Read when and how Penn College says it will use PCT Alerts: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

1 message in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatim845 chars
Burglaries Reported at Rose Street Apartments February 19, 2007 The Penn College Police are investigating several burglaries that have occurred at Rose Street Apartments over the past three weeks. Several apartments in the Lancaster building were entered, and personal items were stolen. These items include game stations, laptop computers and cash. Some of these burglaries occurred while the residents were in their apartments sleeping. All of the apartments entered appear to have been left unlocked and unsecured. Penn College Police are requesting that anyone with information about these incidents call (570) 321-5555. Individuals may also submit information by completing the Silent Witness form on the Penn College Police Web site: http://www.pct.edu/police/silent_witness.htm . Individuals submitting information may remain anonymous.
Verify this quote
Official PCT crime-alerts and timely-warnings archivepct.edufind archived copies
Verbatim from official PCT archive.
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Burglaries Reported at Rose Street Apartments February 19, 2007 The Penn College Police are investigating several burglaries that have occurred at Rose Street Apartments over the past three weeks. Several apartments in the Lancaster building were entered, and personal items were stolen. These items include game stations, laptop computers and cash. Some of these burglaries occurred while the residents were in their apartments sleeping. All of the apartments entered appear to have been left unlocked and unsecured. Penn College Police are requesting that anyone with information about these incidents call (570) 321-5555. Individuals may also submit information by completing the Silent Witness form on the Penn College Police Web site: http://www.pct.edu/police/silent_witness.htm . Individuals submitting information may remain anonymous.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. From the full message only.
    5. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. No outside context used.
    6. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Clear institutional sender cue.
    12. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Source attribution is explicit.
    13. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Sender language is unambiguous.
    14. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Reads as official campus channel.
    15. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    16. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Judged present from named agency.
    17. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Agency or office is named.
    18. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Public safety sender is clear.
    19. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Official notice framing supports source.
    20. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Source element satisfies the bar.
    21. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    22. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    23. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Source present in opening framing.
    24. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Institutional voice is obvious.
    25. present: Penn College Police Crime Alert is the institutional source. Final independent coding concurs.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. From the full message only.
    2. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. No outside context used.
    3. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Strict rubric application.
    4. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
    5. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
    6. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
    7. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Wording is decisive here.
    8. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
    9. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
    10. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
    11. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
    12. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    13. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Judged present from named agency.
    14. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Agency or office is named.
    15. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
    16. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
    17. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
    18. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    19. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    20. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Source present in opening framing.
    21. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
    22. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
    23. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Independent review agrees.
    24. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
    25. present: Multiple residence-hall burglaries with property theft are the hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Wording is decisive here.
    2. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Clear institutional sender cue.
    3. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Source attribution is explicit.
    4. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Sender language is unambiguous.
    5. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Reads as official campus channel.
    6. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    7. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Judged present from named agency.
    8. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Agency or office is named.
    9. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Public safety sender is clear.
    10. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Official notice framing supports source.
    11. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Source element satisfies the bar.
    12. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    13. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    14. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Source present in opening framing.
    15. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Institutional voice is obvious.
    16. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Final independent coding concurs.
    17. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Independent review agrees.
    18. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Confirmed on re-read.
    19. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Based solely on the alert text.
    20. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. From the full message only.
    21. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. No outside context used.
    22. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Strict rubric application.
    23. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Element coded from wording alone.
    24. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Same conclusion on second look.
    25. present: Call Penn College Police (570) 321-5555 or use Silent Witness; remain anonymous if needed. Matches the public-warning test.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. From the full message only.
    18. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. No outside context used.
    19. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Past three weeks prior to February 19 2007 is stated. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. From the full message only.
    15. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. No outside context used.
    16. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Some burglaries while residents slept; unlocked apartments; laptops and cash taken. No ambiguity on who issued it.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official PCT archive residual mining (wider b39).
Analysis

Key Findings

Complete official alert recovered from PCT public archive.
Outcome
See official alert.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
    Crime Alerts and Timely Warnings - PCT
    pct.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Pennsylvania College of Technology: Multiple burglaries at Rose Street Apartments Lancaster building." Incident of February 19, 2007. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-rose-street-apartment-burglaries-2007-02-19/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
technical-collegetimely-warningpennsylvaniawider-reachUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion