Response Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

No. 11

Using Civil Actions 

Against Property 

to Control Crime 

Problems

Martha J. Smith and Lorraine Mazerolle

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Response Guide Series

No. 11

Using Civil Actions Against Property 

to Control Crime Problems

Martha J. Smith and Lorraine Mazerolle

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2010-CK-WX-K005 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References 

to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be 

considered an endorsement of the product by the author(s) or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of June 

2013. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the 

author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

© 2013 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department 

of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this 

publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be 

freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-932582-81-9

Published 2013

Cover photos: 

Right: ©spirit of america/Shutterstock.com

Left: Shutterstock.com

Contents

Contents

About the Response Guides Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Reasons for Police to Focus on Problem Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Code Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Nuisance Abatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Eviction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Civil Injunction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Receivership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Condemnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Other Civil Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Negligence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Dram Shop Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Package of Civil Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Building Civil Remedies Capacity within Local Government and in the Community. . . . . 27

Including Needed Collaborators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Developing Staff Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Finding and Enacting Appropriate Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Constraints on and Considerations about the Scope of Civil Remedies Use. . . . . . . . . . . 29

Protected Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Non-offending Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Level of Proof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Regulatory Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Selective Enforcement Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Determining Problem-Specific Civil Remedies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Appendix A: An Expanded Script Approach for Use with Civil Remedies. . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix B: Blank Tables to Use in Planning an Initiative Using a Civil Remedy. . . . . . 41

Appendix C: Applying Property-Related Civil Remedies to Drug Crime 

in Public and Private Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix D: Applying Property-Related Civil Remedies 

to Alcohol-Related Disorder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
| 1 |

About the Response Guides Series

About the Response Guides Series

The Response Guides are one of three series of the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The 

other two are the Problem-Specific Guides and Problem-Solving Tools. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge about how police can reduce 

the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 

problems and improving overall incident response, not to investigating offenses or handling 

specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement 

specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problems the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to 

officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods

•	 Can look at problems in depth

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge

•	 Are willing to work with other community agencies to find effective solutions to 

problems

The Response Guides summarize knowledge about whether police should use certain 

responses to address various crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they 

might expect. Each guide:

•	 Describes the response 

•	 Discusses the various ways police might apply the response 

•	 Explains how the response is designed to reduce crime and disorder 

•	 Examines the research knowledge about the response 

•	 Addresses potential criticisms and negative consequences that might flow from use of 

the response 

•	 Describes how police have applied the response to specific crime and disorder problems, 

and with what effect

The Response Guides are intended to be used differently from the Problem-Specific Guides. 

Ideally, police should begin all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the specific 

crime and disorder problems they are confronting, and then using the analysis results to 

devise particular responses. But certain responses are so commonly considered and have 

such potential to help address a range of specific crime and disorder problems that it makes 

sense for police to learn more about what results they might expect from them. 
| 2 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Readers are cautioned that the Response Guides are designed to supplement problem analysis, 

not to replace it. Police should analyze all crime and disorder problems in their local context 

before implementing responses. Even if research knowledge suggests that a particular 

response has proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the response will be effective 

everywhere. Local factors matter a lot in choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, in most cases, the most effective 

overall approach to a problem is one that incorporates several different responses. So a 

single response guide is unlikely to provide you with sufficient information on which to 

base a coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. Some combinations of 

responses work better than others. Thus, how effective a particular response is depends 

partly on what other responses police use to address the problem. 

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the main considerations police 

should take into account in choosing responses, but recognize that they are not the only 

considerations. Police use particular responses for reasons other than, or in addition to, 

whether or not they will work, and whether or not they are deemed fair. Community 

attitudes and values, and the personalities of key decision-makers, sometimes mandate 

different approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems. Some communities and 

individuals prefer enforcement-oriented responses, whereas others prefer collaborative, 

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These guides will not necessarily alter 

those preferences, but are intended to better inform them.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific 

public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of 

them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.
| 3 |

About the Response Guides Series

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported 

police practice, and each guide is anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a 

police executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review process is independently 

managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews.   

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics 

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs 

| 5 |

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director), and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff, and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research, and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia police 

departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Marian 

Haggard edited this guide. 
| 6 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Introduction

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses the use of civil remedies to control and prevent crime and disorder 

occurring at real-property locations, such as individual addresses or geographical areas. 

In general, the focus of the enforcement is not usually the potential offender, but rather 

someone who has control over property that has been, or might be, used in the commission 

of a crime. The civil remedy may be used in place of—or often in tandem with—criminal 

penalties as a coercive incentive for the person (or business) who is the focus of the potential 

remedy to do (or refrain from doing) a particular thing.1 Focusing on the underlying crime 

opportunities provided at a particular place helps to limit the frustrations involved in 

revolving-door policing (i.e., offense commission, calls for service, arrest, conviction on a 

minor charge, release, and repeat). 

This guide provides general explanations about the types of civil remedies that you can 

use to address crime at particular places and points out a number of issues you should 

consider before using these remedies. Examples of placed-focused civil remedies are set out 

in the main text, and in Appendixes C and D. These remedies can be used to control a 

variety of crime opportunities focused on places, depending on the particular type of civil 

remedy used and the language set out in the legal regulations themselves, which differ across 

jurisdictions.

While a number of different types of crime problems that can benefit from the use of civil 

remedies are mentioned in this guide, two types of crime-and-place problems have been 

highlighted—drug-related crime in housing (particularly government-run or supported 

housing) and alcohol-related crime and disorder in and around licensed premises (i.e., bars, 

pubs, and clubs). Appendixes C and D summarize some of the key features of prevention 

schemes addressing these two crime problems, providing examples of situations in which 

they have been used both successfully and unsuccessfully. Historically, these problem places 

have been the focus of close government regulation, and the prevention schemes set out 

here reflect the use of existing statutory powers as well as the development of new regulatory 

mechanisms. Many, but not all of these, used the SARA† approach of problem-oriented 

policing to frame the steps taken to address the problems.‡ 

† “SARA” is the acronym used to describe the four steps involved in this approach—scanning, analyzing, responding, and 

assessing.

‡ Although Appendixes C and D primarily focus on drug crime and alcohol-related crime and disorder, many of these examples

also involve a variety of other crime and disorder problems, reinforcing the idea that places can be potential crime-opportunity 

generators for a wide spectrum of crimes.
| 7 |

Introduction

The guide does not cover all types of civil remedies. Asset forfeiture (including those 

included under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws) will not 

be discussed here.† Regulations aimed specifically at anti-social behavior‡ and at gangs§ are 

not discussed here, although many of the crime problems discussed here may include antisocial behaviors and involve gang members. The use of third parties—such as insurance 

companies, auditors, and professional standards groups—to regulate economic behavior2 is 

also beyond the scope of this guide.

Neither does this guide address the use of the civil law as a means for the government to 

take ownership of land in order for it to be used for another, noncriminal purpose, such as 

for redevelopment.3

This guide does not address the use of new laws or regulations by themselves, unless 

they are used as part of more traditional civil remedies related to property. For example, 

legislation passed to require convenience stores to have two staff members present at 

all times, and laws restricting the number of hours that a liquor store may be open, do 

not include the type of civil remedy generally addressed here4 although liquor licensing 

requirements are addressed as part of the discussion of civil code enforcement. 

Reasons for Police to Focus on Problem Properties

Civil remedies can be used against a wide variety of crimes and at different stages of the 

criminal process; however, they are different than many other crime prevention responses. 

Civil remedies can sometimes be used as specific responses to crime or disorder problems. 

Examples of these uses include tenants being evicted for selling drugs in public housing or 

for repeatedly having loud parties late at night in violation of their leases. Civil remedies can 

also be used to promote general crime prevention. In this latter sense, they induce changes 

to property conditions and practices that facilitate crime. Examples of this use include 

agencies enforcing health and safety codes as a way to force landlords to clean up housing 

that has been used as a place for drug use, or when the potential enforcement of licensing 

laws helps persuade pub owners to cooperate in an initiative to reduce late-night crime 

and disorder. Hence, they are often referred to under the label “third-party policing,”5 with 

the inducement sometimes being referred to as a “legal lever.”6 These types of control are 

increasingly being brought to bear in both public and private property contexts. 

† See Response Guide No. 7, Asset Forfeiture.

‡ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 6, Disorderly Youth in Public Places.

§ See Shiner (2009) for a detailed set of guidelines for gang injunctions, with examples drawn primarily from legislation in 

California.
| 8 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

In many cases, these interventions increase the capacity of the local community to act as 

informal and formal agents of crime prevention. The local community is often the first 

party to notice the crime problem and the best source of information about the patterns 

associated with it. 

It makes good sense for police to focus on crime places and opportunities. The importance 

of looking at the links between crimes, offenders, and places is well known in modern 

policing, and is well illustrated by the crime triangle’s emphasis on these three aspects of 

crime events.† Research has demonstrated that crime is clustered in some places and not 

others, and that blocking crime opportunities at high-risk places can prevent a wide range 

of crimes. Reducing opportunities does not require focusing on just one known offender or 

group of offenders. Changing the situation can influence many potential, as well as different 

types of offenders at that location, some of whom may be unknown to the police. It can be 

difficult to bring cases against individual offenders through arrest and prosecution alone. 

The criminal law necessarily sets a high standard of proof for punishment of an individual 

and that level of proof is often unavailable. Focusing on the property itself can lead to 

incentives for those in control of premises to improve their design or management to help 

discourage would-be offenders. 

Civil remedy use may not necessarily be a problem-free “quick fix.” It often requires a 

commitment of both time and resources. It is most often a collaborative effort (involving 

police, other governmental agencies, and the local community) and can call for patience 

across all stakeholders as the various stages of the legal process unfold. Furthermore, the use 

of civil remedies is not without some potential negative consequences as well since they can 

also produce unintended consequences that harm non-offenders or lead to a displacement 

of the crime problems. Careful planning (discussed below) should help limit the potential 

for these types of problems, however. 

† The crime triangle is also known as the “Problem Analysis Triangle” (see Clarke and Eck 2005). It visually links three aspects 

of a crime event—offender, target (or victim), and place of occurrence—with three ways of controlling each of these: handlers 

control offenders, guardians control targets, and managers control places.
| 9 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies 

Real-property rights relate to land and land uses. These can include such diverse rights as: 

(a) ownership, (b) the ability to transfer the property or to build on it, (c) the enjoyment 

of particular aspects related to it (such as a certain amount of relief from noise), and (d) 

the possession of it for business or residential purposes. Each of these rights is constrained, 

regulated, and protected in a variety of ways, and these differ across jurisdictions. Four 

general sources of authority for civil remedies have been identified: statute, subordinate 

legislation, contract, and tort.7 Here, statutory and other legislative and regulatory sources 

of authority (such as local ordinances and codes) and leasehold agreements (generally the 

right to occupy property) are highlighted.

The civil protections of these property rights provide legal remedies for their breach. Civil 

remedies do not necessarily include recovering money damages following a legal judgment 

favoring one party over another. Instead, they can force someone to correct a breach of a 

law, legal agreement, or a legally recognized right. Actual legislation in this area, however, 

may contain criminal law penalty components as well as civil remedies. These criminal 

penalties are often used when third parties fail to respond to the civil-remedy incentives for 

altering criminal-opportunity places and situations (see, e.g., “Anti-Slum Packet” in the box 

on page 26). 

This section describes some basic terms that are used in property-related civil remedies, 

provides some examples,† and sets out some of the advantages and disadvantages of their 

use. These descriptions are purposely general, as the exact meaning of the regulatory scheme 

or civil action will be determined by the law in a particular jurisdiction. Because the law 

in your jurisdiction needs to guide your decision making, you should include government 

attorneys in the planning process when you are considering using civil remedies to address 

crime and disorder problems. 

Civil remedies can be difficult to understand because, unlike penal codes, they do not easily 

fit within a strict hierarchical structure. Table 1 on page 10 gives short-hand descriptions 

of the civil remedies discussed in this section as a simple guide to the basic remedies each 

action provides.‡

† Additional examples are provided in the table in Appendixes C and D.

‡ Table B1 is set out in Appendix B to guide you in setting out the particular features of each of these civil remedies in your 

jurisdiction.
| 10 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Table 1. Shorthand descriptions of some property-related civil remedies 

Property-Related Civil Remedy Target Short-Hand Description of the Civil Action 

Outcome

Code enforcement Landlord/owner Enforces health and safety rules

Zoning Landlord/owner Limits activities and structures to particular areas or 

locations 

Nuisance abatement Landlord/owner 

(usually)

Returns to (or seeks to achieve) quiet enjoyment 

Eviction Tenant Removes the tenant

Trespass Uninvited persons Removes the non-tenant

Civil injunction Various Orders someone to do or stop doing something 

immediately

Receivership Landlord/owner Gets someone else to manage the property

Condemnation Landlord/owner Locks it up and tears it down 

Code Enforcement

Code enforcement is one of the most common civil prevention incentives used to address 

crime and disorder. It refers to the legal action taken by an enforcement body in response 

to a violation of one or more municipal health and safety codes, such as those related to 

building construction, building conditions (e.g., fire and safety and nuisance-control), 

and the operation of a business (e.g., a liquor store). Different agencies often control the 

enforcement of different regulatory codes; hence, the need for cooperation and coordinated 

responses among these agencies. For example, police and code inspectors may cooperate 

to inspect and issue breach notices for derelict or abandoned buildings suspected of being 

used as drug houses or providing a place for noisy parties for teens. One of the advantages 

of code enforcement is that it is based on statutes or ordinances that can be printed and 

distributed to those whose property is being regulated or inspected.

When there is a violation or breach, it often relates to noise, rubbish, or safety. Owners can 

be compelled to act to make their premises comply with the standards set out in the code. 

A civil injunction may be issued that requires them to deal with these problems (see “Civil 

Injunction” on page 22).8 Owners can be called on to secure their buildings, clean up litter, 

improve the physical environment, and evict tenants suspected of drug involvement (or 

other violations of the terms of their leases). The code enforcement aspect is the “stick,” 

but the “carrots” can vary from continued operation to increased revenues and safety for 

employees, as well as patrons and local residents. The ultimate stick for enforcement of 

licensed premises that sell alcohol, for example, is license revocation,9 in effect “capital 

punishment” for alcohol-sales outlets.10
| 11 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Street Sweeping, Broadway Style: Revitalizing 

a Business District from the Inside Out

Place: Fort Howard District, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Civil remedies used: Liquor license regulations, municipal ordinances, and 

trespass law

Scanning:

• An inner-city business area had high crime, litter, and broken bottles.

• People were living on the streets, often drunk and disorderly. 

Analysis:

• Police analysis identified 20 individuals as being involved in most of the complaints.

• Police found that neighborhood residents and business leaders had lost faith in the police to 

manage the problems.

Response:

Police spearheaded a community effort, strongly enforcing public ordinances on open 

intoxicants and gaining the cooperation of liquor store and bar owners in denying alcohol to 

habitually intoxicated people (among a range of other tactics).

Assessment:

Four years after introduction of the POP initiative and introduction of community police officers, 

there was a 65 percent reduction in total police calls and a 91 percent decrease in demand for 

rescue services to handle injuries resulting from assaults. 

Business in the area boomed.

Source: Green Bay Police Department (1999)

Code enforcement initiatives against alcohol-related crime and disorder often focus on one 

aspect of the problem, such as excessive alcohol consumption, overcrowding, high noise 

levels, or lack of control over entry and exit to the venue or the vicinity. The police and 

code enforcement agencies often develop these initiatives in cooperation with the local club 

and bar owners. 
| 12 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

A comprehensive review of aggression-prevention schemes in bars and pubs failed to 

find that there was one set of implementation approaches—or one set of measures—that 

succeeded in all situations.11 Nevertheless, code enforcement has been found to be part 

of an effective set of measures, reducing crime or aggression—at least in the shorter term 

(see Table D1 on page 55)12—although not uniformly so.13 The researchers who carried 

out the comprehensive review stressed, however, that enhanced enforcement (by police 

and regulatory agencies) has to continue past the lifetime of particular initiatives.14 This 

highlights the need for patience and a continued commitment by those involved in an 

initiative to make sure that success is not short-lived.

Effective code enforcement does not just involve having officials conduct code inspections. 

For example, regular police enforcement and a variety of code enforcement inspections (i.e., 

fire code and alcohol and gaming checks) of a nightclub were used initially in Burlington, 

Ontario (Canada).15 These had little effect on the crime problems at the site. It was only 

after two major disorder events by unruly patrons occurred that these problems were 

adequately addressed. The community (including police, regulators, adjoining businesses, 

and local residents) set up a number of different measures to control movement of cars 

and people within and around the club venue, including enforcement of health, safety, and 

licensing codes (see Table D1, Appendix D, on page 55). 

Zoning

Zoning refers to the governmental regulation of property uses on a long-range basis, 

particularly as part of long-term land-use planning.16 These regulations—which can apply 

to general areas (hence “zones”) or to location-specific land uses—include limits to the sizes 

and types of structures built on land and whether the property can be used for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or other particular kinds of purposes. Zoning is also used to limit 

when businesses in an area can be open. One type of exception to a zoning restriction is a 

conditional use permit, which is given by the regulatory body when certain conditions are 

met; this type of permit is generally limited in scope to a particular property.17 Mixed-use 

zones permit several different uses to occur in the same zone. 

Zoning laws can be used to prevent a range of illegal activities by limiting the types of 

legal (and potentially illegal) activities—from alcohol consumption and sales, to dancing 

and having rave parties—that are permitted in particular areas. Some communities have 

restrictions on the number or types of businesses in a given block. Other communities 

restrict certain business types to one well-defined area to allow for concentrated police 

surveillance and enforcement. Many localities, including Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, 

Washington; and Dallas, Texas, have passed zoning laws to restrict the location of adultoriented activities considered to be generators of crime and neighborhood disorder.18
| 13 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Zoning & Liquor Licensing Regulations

Places: One community in northern California, one in southern California, and 

another in South Carolina

Problem identified through research on links between alcohol outlet location and crime 

problems. No single problem place was identified nor were particular cities or towns identified.

Responses/Interventions:

• Implemented zoning requirements related to distance between alcohol outlets and public places 

• Reviewed licenses 

• Restricted alcohol access for special events (licensing changes)

• Trained servers 

• Police set up: (a) on-site stings for responsible service (no alcohol sold to the intoxicated), 

(b) stings for under-age drinkers, and (c) checkpoints

• Used breath-testing devices

Outcomes—Declines in:

• Hospital assault cases in experimental sites

• Rates of nighttime motor vehicle crashes (no decline in daytime vehicle crash rates)

• Monthly rates of DUI vehicle crashes

• Average quantities of alcohol consumed per occasion and average number of drinks per 

occasion (both self-reported measures of binge drinking) 

Key factors: 

• Community involvement 

• Responsible serving practices 

• Limiting under-age access

• Increased actual and perceived risk of enforcement of drunk driving 

• Community restrictions on alcohol access

Source: Holder et al. (2000)
| 14 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Both zoning ordinances and conditional use permits are commonly used to control alcohol 

sales. In California in the mid-1980s, zoning and conditional use permits were used to 

limit the placement and operation of alcohol-sales outlets following research evidence of a 

relationship between sales (and use) and public nuisances and crime.19 They have also been 

used to require alcohol establishments to be a certain distance from public places, such as 

parks or schools. The rationale for these types of restrictions is that there exists a causal link 

between alcohol availability and traffic crashes and assaults in particular settings.20

In Scottsdale, Arizona, zoning, liquor licensing, and security plans are explicitly linked. 

The online “Liquor License Packet” explains that liquor licensing and conditional use 

permit requests for the property (if needed) are to be submitted at the same time—and the 

body that reviews conditional use permits (the city council) can make recommendations 

to the state liquor licensing authority.21 This packet also details a series of rules related to 

different types of licensed premises. For example, bars, cocktail lounges, and after-hours 

establishments must have a management and security plan that is “created, approved, 

implemented, maintained, and enforced” for that business at the same time that the 

business applies for the liquor license.22 Thus, the suitability of the location is assessed in a 

public hearing and the rules of operation are linked to the granting of the license. 

A discussion of factors to consider when developing new zoning regulations to address 

crime and disorder problems is beyond the scope of this guide. However, zoning changes 

(even those meant to stimulate business investment and help revitalize a local area) can lead 

to crime and disorder problems for that local community.23

Nuisance Abatement 

Nuisance abatement refers to a legal action to change a situation in which a person is being 

deprived of his or her right to “quiet enjoyment” by some existing condition, or by actions 

being carried out by another person, group, or business.24 Community partnerships can 

be particularly useful here if the law in your jurisdiction allows their direct involvement in 

bringing abatement actions.

Abatement statutes to discourage drug dealers were first implemented in Portland, Oregon, 

in 1987.25 By 1992, 24 U.S. states had passed statutes specifically designed to control drug 

activities on private properties.26 A number of these were based on old “bawdy house” laws 

designed to curb prostitution.†

† You may want to check your jurisdiction’s case law and statutes for the terms “bawdy houses,” “houses of ill repute,” and 

“disorderly houses” for additional prohibitions on nuisance activities, particularly if your jurisdiction has not updated or revamped 

its codes recently. 
| 15 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Abatement and eviction notices have been used hand-in-hand to address drug crimes in 

housing. Abatement actions focus on the property holder while eviction actions focus 

on the leaseholder or renter, but sometimes it is necessary to provide notice of potential 

abatement actions to induce the owner to act against the tenant (or, in at least one case, 

against the management company27).

Abating a nuisance problem often includes these steps or stages:28

•	 Local government becomes aware of nuisances through the activities of their own 

agencies (such as the police) as well as through complaints by others (such as apartment 

building residents or neighbors). 

•	 Inspections may be conducted by a range of actors including building, health, electrical, 

plumbing, and fire inspectors. 

•	 If the local regulatory authority is satisfied that a nuisance exists at a property, it must 

issue an abatement notice against the person responsible (usually the property owner), 

consisting of a letter or a public notice in a newspaper or a notice posted on the 

property. 

•	 An abatement notice will stipulate that the nuisance is prohibited and that it needs to 

be rectified. 

— It can specify steps that need to be taken to meet the terms of the notice together 

with a time limit, such as asking property owners to take action against drug 

dealers who are operating on their premises.

•	 In addition to a demand for remedial action, the notice may warn of the possible 

closing down, or the confiscation of properties, that are being used for the crime.

•	 Failure to comply with an abatement notice without being able to provide a reasonable 

excuse can be a criminal offense. 

— However, it is up to your municipality’s prosecutor to show that the excuse is not 

reasonable.

The first warning is typically enough to leverage owners to take action. In fact, early 

research on the use of abatements in the 1990s found that civil suits were filed in fewer 

than 5 percent of abatement actions in cities that initiate warning letters to property 

owners.29

Some abatement laws permit private citizens (including property owners) to directly issue 

notices to the responsible party (usually the property owner) and then, if the nuisance 

still continues after a given time, apply to the court for relief. Private citizens may also be 

able to bring a nuisance complaint directly to the attention of the court and request an 

abatement notice. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, citizens themselves filed civil 

lawsuits against drug nuisance property owners.30
| 16 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

In 2007, Los Angeles County began using nuisance abatement lawsuits against both the 

property owners and the specific gang members who allowed or created a nuisance at a 

particular property.31 In these cases, both sets of parties were named in the suits, which were 

termed “gang property abatements.”

Turning Around a “Troubled Building”

(Known to Police for Assaults and Drug-related Activity)

Place: Seattle, Washington

Civil remedy used: Chronic Nuisance Property Ordinance

Problem place: Building with assaults and drug-related activity

Ordinance:

• Passed by the City Council in November 2009

• Defined a chronic nuisance property as one where certain crimes, drug-related activities, 

or gang-related activities occur three times within a 60-day period or seven times within a 

12-month period

Collaboration partners: 

• Police department and the city attorney’s office

Implementation:

• Building was declared a “chronic nuisance” by the city

• Police met with the owner to discuss the issues

• Owner agreed to cooperate

• Owner entered into a “correction agreement” with the city to remedy the problems on the 

property 

Outcome:

Following the intervention, no 911 calls were logged at the building over the next year. 

Source: Holmes (2012)
| 17 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

An intervention at an apartment complex in San Diego, California included many Section 

8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -sponsored units.32

When the police were unable to gain HUD’s assistance with the owner to replace what 

appeared to be a corrupt management company, they looked to bring an abatement action, 

based on a claim that the owner or the management company had facilitated the nuisance 

activity there. If that failed, as a last resort, the police would have asked the California 

Board of Realtors to revoke the management company’s business license. The police did 

not need to take this action, however, since the possibility of abatement was sufficient to 

motivate the owner to act quickly.

Abatement measures, and the potential use of further actions consistent with the nuisance 

problem, can be used to pressure owners to act against crime on their properties, even 

if they are not the perpetrator. When used against drug crime, abatement procedures 

can offer property owners legal authority and support to evict drug criminals, or those 

holding the lease on the property if they are not themselves offenders.33 The mere threat 

of abatement proceedings can encourage owners to screen their prospective tenants more 

completely.34

In addition, abatement is much less expensive than other types of litigation, because there is 

little risk of having to pay the defendant’s legal costs if the claim is unsuccessful.35 Because 

of the complexity and effort (compared to voluntary cooperation) of nuisance abatement 

procedures, however, you may want to approach the landlord directly first before you bring 

legal action against him or her. This might also speed up the compliance process.

Eviction

An eviction is a civil action brought to remove someone from a property where the person’s 

possession of that property has been deemed to be illegal, such as when the tenant has 

violated the terms of the lease. In these situations, the tenant (and his or her possessions) 

can be removed and he or she can be locked out of the property. This removal action will 

often be the last action used when other measures have been unsuccessful in ameliorating 

the crime or disorder conditions. This civil action is also sometimes referred to as “an 

unlawful detainer action.”36

Other actions having a more limited effect on the tenancy that can be brought by landlords 

against tenants include waste actions (a civil action rooted in the common law). A waste 

action asserts that the tenant is doing something to destroy the current or future use of the 

property.37
| 18 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Manhattan District Attorney’s Narcotics Eviction Program

Place: New York, New York

Civil remedy used: N.Y.S. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law §715 (from 1987)*

Problem places: Public housing with problems related to drug sales and use

Measures used:

• Tenants were evicted by landlords who were provided with proof of illegal drug activity in their 

premises and were given legal support.

• Witnesses were able to tip off police anonymously, without having to testify in court.

• Landowners who did not comply with a notice to evict a tenant could face $5,000 in fines.

Outcome:

Between June 1988 and August 1994, the program evicted drug dealers from 2,005 apartments and 

retail stores. 

* Originally, this law was enacted in 1868 to abate “bawdy house” activity, with §715 amended in 1947 

to include “any illegal trade, business or manufacture.” 

Source: Finn (1995)

In parts of the United Kingdom additional measures, other than eviction, are used as a way 

of monitoring tenant behavior to help deal with nuisance and disorder in public housing. 

Demotion is a short-term measure used in England and Wales that changes the conditions 

of the tenancy. It gives tenants a less secure tenancy (in terms of its protections against 

possession proceedings), normally lasting for a year.38 It can be used against tenants for 

anti-social behavior (essentially nuisance behavior). Closure refers to the action of locking 

out tenants for a period of three months following nuisance or disorder behavior that results 

from drug use or drug supplying.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was passed by the U.S. Congress, allowing civil 

remedies (and other, criminal penalties) to be used to address drug crimes. In 1990, the 

U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development made funds available to public 

housing authorities to combat drug and crime problems. Drug Elimination Programs 

(DEP) combined police enforcement, drug treatment, drug prevention, youth and gang 

outreach, community organizing, integrated health and social service agencies, and tenant 

mobilization projects in an ambitious and complex intervention to control drug use and 

drug selling in public housing.39
| 19 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Note however, that other programs in New York City40 and Knoxville, Tennessee,41

were not found by the evaluators to be successful (see description of these programs in 

Appendix C).

As part of a partnership approach, police can use private security, the public housing 

administrators and property managers, local government authorities, real estate agents, 

and community members (such as other residents of the building or complex) to assist 

in identifying problem tenants and providing information about illegal activities.42

Administrators can enforce tenancy agreements and evict tenants who are involved with, or 

providing housing to those involved with drug manufacturing, sales, or use.

The New York Narcotics Eviction Program allowed for the leaseholders to be evicted if 

evidence could be produced that they were aware that their rented premise was being 

used for drug dealing, even where the drug dealers were not the official tenants.43 This 

tenancy situation was often the case, and the eviction was possible even if the dealers 

were using the tenant’s property without their consent. The crucial element was that the 

tenant was aware of the use. In Los Angeles and other locations in California, there was 

a pilot program to address drug crime using an unlawful detainer statute. Under this 

California law, property owners were able to assign their rights to file unlawful detainer 

actions to city attorneys. Due to funding and reporting issues, however, this pilot 

program was inconclusive.44

The possibility of eviction provides landlords and administrators (tenancy place managers) 

with a powerful incentive to use to gain tenants’ compliance with regulations.

Eviction can be used as part of a range of measures and is usually the most severe civil 

consequence for a tenant. However, it is not always part of a successful campaign. It may 

move the problem elsewhere or affect the innocent. 

Trespass 

In its simplest form, civil trespass “involves an infringement on the use of one person’s 

property by another person who has no authority or legitimate right to infringe on such 

person’s use”45 and is enforced by the wronged party, while criminal trespass involves the 

violation of a statutory prohibition and is enforced by the police. Civil law rights are set out 

by statute or may be incorporated in tenancy agreements. 
| 20 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Trespass Program for Use in Housing Common Areas

Place: Portland, Oregon

The Housing Authority of Portland (HAP) contracted with the county sheriff’s office to implement a 

trespass strategy (involving both civil and criminal components) as part of a multi-pronged approach to 

managing “gang activity” on a public housing estate.

Problem place: Public housing estate with “gang activity”

Measures used:

• The county sheriff dedicated special patrol officers (“Safety Action Team” or SAT) to the housing estate. 

• SAT officers were made the agents of the property owners so the officers could enter private property 

to enforce rules even when violations were not crimes. This allowed the officers to expel non-tenant 

gang members (as trespassers) and arrest any who returned.

• HAP also began strictly enforcing its leases and evicting girlfriends (of the gang members) who had 

unauthorized gang member guests.

Problem with the initial scheme:

The prosecutor’s office could not prosecute its initial criminal trespass cases due to problems with the 

terms of the existing leases. 

Changes in the program structure suggested by the prosecutor’s office:

• Obtain lease addenda putting HAP in charge of common areas for the purposes of enforcing 

trespass laws.

• Agree upon rules non-tenants had to follow in common areas.

• Delegate exclusion authority to the SAT. 

Outcome:

Letters permitting the SAT and Portland police officers to enforce trespass laws were signed. Officers 

were then able, under the law, to enforce exclusion of non-tenants violating behavior codes and arrest 

gang members who returned, prosecuting them for criminal trespass.

The strategy was considered a success because gang members were eliminated from the estate common 

areas within 18 months.

Source: Hayden (2007)
| 21 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Unlike civil remedies that seek to change landlords’ or tenants’ behavior, anti-trespass 

provisions of tenancies or statutes have the advantage of targeting the controls on those 

present on the property that may be creating crime opportunities or carrying out illegal 

activities but who are not subject to tenancy controls. A 1996 study reported that an 

estimated 70–90 percent of those arrested in public housing communities were intruders or 

trespassers, not residents.46 This same research found that trespass prevention programs had 

been successfully conducted in Denison, Texas; Greensboro, Georgia; Clearwater, Florida; 

and Tampa, Florida.47

Two main pathways for assertion of civil trespass rights in residential situations have been 

and can be used. First, police can encourage landlords and others to assert their rights to 

bring a civil action themselves.48 Second, landlords can use an affidavit to authorize others 

(e.g., police) to enforce these rights for them. In addition to allowing law enforcement 

officers to ask trespassers to leave an area, this last pathway can also result in a criminal 

prosecution if those asked to leave return. Criminal prosecutions can also occur if police 

find contraband on trespassers. 

In the case of civil trespass in public housing, the police can encourage stakeholders, such as 

public housing management, private security, resident patrols, and resident groups, to use 

their rights against non-tenant trespassers, depending on the tenancy agreements in place. 

These trespass law initiatives may be reinforced through the creation of resident “passes” and 

identification programs for authorized tenants. This approach is most effective when access to 

the property is controlled by the presence of on-site security guards and access control points, 

because trespassing rules are difficult to enforce in an open or open-access community.49

Another program that involves having the police act as agents for the landlords is the 

Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP) in New York City. In New York County (Manhattan), 

TAP requires landlords to register for the program, post signs throughout the buildings 

that say “Tenants and Their Guests ONLY,” provide the police with an up-to-date list of all 

tenants and keys to the buildings, and allow the police to conduct “vertical patrols” in the 

building.50 Not only is there a possibility of a stiffer enforcement mechanism with these 

transferal of rights agreements, but they may also increase the likelihood that any actual 

enforcement will occur.

One major disadvantage of the use of trespass enforcement can be the lack of support 

from the local community. This can occur if there is not adequate notice of the program 

or when there is a perception of over-enforcement. Legal challenges to trespass affidavit 

programs may be based on claims of disparate enforcement on the basis of race or ethnicity 

or assertions that police are conducting stop-and-frisk procedures without an adequate legal 

basis or adequate oversight.51
| 22 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Criminal trespass actions have also been used to address alcohol-related crime and disorder 

problems. For example, criminal trespass warnings have been used to keep troublemakers 

away from a late-night venue after they have been arrested there. Criminal trespass was 

used to help control assaultive behavior in a particular country-western nightclub in Texas 

that had been experiencing a high volume of police activity for alcohol-related disorder 

and crime. Texas law allowed a person to be arrested for criminal trespass if they had been 

“warned away” from a location in the presence of a peace officer.52 A similar practice is 

used in Madison, Wisconsin, in which persons deemed “unruly patrons” can be temporarily 

banished from a licensed establishment (see Figure 1).53

Figure 1. Example of “Unruly Patron” form from Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department

Source: Madison Police Department

Civil Injunction

A civil injunction is the general term for a court order that seeks to force someone to 

perform an action or to stop someone from doing something that causes harm (or has the 

potential to cause harm). Property-related injunctions can be focused on stopping a person, 

group, or organization from carrying out behavior that prevents others from enjoying a 

property-related right they have, or can order an owner to remedy nuisance conditions. 

These injunctions can be either temporary or permanent, with permanent injunctions 

usually being issued following a court hearing in which both parties receive notice of the 

hearing and have an opportunity to respond. The issuing of a civil injunction can be part 

of a larger civil proceeding, such as nuisance abatement, where it can be used to stop a 

business from operating in a way that contributes to the alleged nuisance activities. 
| 23 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

Courts may grant injunctions in nuisance abatement cases if the nuisance is severe enough 

or the harm needs to be addressed more quickly.54 Breaches of court orders can result in a 

contempt ruling, which can be a criminal offense and result in a jail term or a fine. Courts 

may also order property closed—the most common sanction—and sometimes they may 

order the property sold at auction. 

Temporary injunctions, depending on their breadth, can gain the attention of the targeted 

party and induce them to act to prevent the loss of income or some further civil action. 

As with any civil remedy used against a party who is allowing crime or disorder conditions 

to exist on their property, these orders can be ignored by the targeted party unless there are 

further consequences to their issuance.

Receivership 

Property is considered to be in receivership when a court has transferred its management to 

a third party, such as a bank or administrator. This may be done with severely deteriorated 

buildings to allow the receivers to repair the structures, and force the owners to cover the 

costs.55 When used as part of a crime-prevention initiative, the court may have previously 

found that the owner did not respond adequately to a court order following a nuisance 

abatement action or other civil action.

The example from Maricopa County, Arizona, in the “package of civil measures” section 

(see page 25) describes how receivership can be used as part of a civil-remedy crimeprevention initiative. 

The potential loss of revenue to landlords who are forced to give up their profits in a 

receivership may be sufficient to change crime and disorder conditions, although some property 

targeted by police may not generate a large amount of income. This could make it difficult to 

find a competent receiver if the remedy is used, rather than just seen as a possibility.

Condemnation

This action is brought by a court signifying that the building on a parcel of property is not 

habitable—or, as in one case, the cost of repair is higher than the cost of replacement and 

it is no longer a place to be lived in.56 Access to the building will be restricted; it will be 

“boarded up” prior to, or as an alternative to, demolition. This remedy is usually seen as a 

last resort when addressing crime problems. 

Condemnation and boarding up of properties can be highly effective in certain 

circumstances. In other circumstances, it can be very controversial and lead to worsened 

conditions in the short term—if residents are uncertain where they will live or existing 

social controls are disrupted.
| 24 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Chicago Housing Authorities (CHA) Anti-Drug Initiative (ADI)

Place: Three high-rise housing developments in Chicago, Illinois

(Final phase of initiative discussed here)

Federal regulations required housing authorities to demolish public housing properties where 

the costs of repairs exceeded the cost of replacement.

Initial problems identified: Crime, violence, and disorder, including drug sales and use, 

primarily by young residents

Activities: (see also Table C1, Appendix C)

• Increased level of housing services (better security and increased cleaning and repair) 

related to initiative

• Redevelopment effort unrelated to ADI initiative

• Identification and demolition of severely distressed public housing (unrelated to ADI 

initiative)

• Prosecution of gang members (unrelated to ADI initiative) 

Outcome:

• Gang wars resulted from loss of leaders in powerful gang

• In the short term, the demolition worsened conditions (e.g., changes occurred in staffing at 

buildings not demolished)—which were measured by resident perceptions of their quality 

of life 

• Condemnation and demolition of scattered buildings disrupted key gang territories, causing 

new conflicts and rising fears among residents that they might be left homeless.

Source: Popkin et al. (1999)

Provisions requiring landlords to vacate buildings following nuisance abatement actions were 

used more successfully in Joliet, Illinois. In one enforcement project, after repeated attempts 

to gain landlord cooperation, a group of apartments were ordered closed and tenants 

were required to vacate the premises and move elsewhere. A new owner made the needed 

changes. Tenants were able to apply for an apartment.57 In another Joliet Police Department 

project, at the request of the police, the city council passed an ordinance requiring landlords 

to cooperate with police once they had been notified of criminal activity on their property 

(as part of a nuisance abatement effort).58 If the landlord failed to comply, then he or she 

would be forced to vacate the property, leaving it empty. 
| 25 |

Types of Property-Related Civil Remedies

The condemnation process can remove buildings that are no longer habitable or are 

dangerous for area residents or passersby. The possibility of having to vacate a building can 

be used as another tool for gaining landlord cooperation and may encourage action at an 

early stage, so that the property does not need to be vacated, boarded up, or torn down.

It has been unclear and difficult to predict the success of a program involving the securing 

of abandoned buildings, due to the difficulties involved with measuring impacts and the 

limited evidence base.59 Also, this type of program can present other problems in the short 

term because of its high degree of disruption for both offenders and local residents.

Other Civil Measures

Negligence

Individuals and businesses can be held civilly liable (for damages incurred) as a result of 

their failure to meet a duty of care to others. These general principles of liability (and the 

possibility of their application) can be usefully applied in the context of property-related 

crime and disorder prevention if they force land owners, landlords, and businesses to alter 

property conditions conducive to these offenses.60 While “negligence” is the more general 

legal term for these types of actions, the term “civil liability” is often use to describe lawsuits 

brought against property owners in this context.

Dram Shop Provisions

In addition to the ordinary principles of negligence related to businesses, statutes may 

exist in your jurisdiction that create a special type of “civil liability” focused on a legal duty 

of care applicable to alcohol establishments (or “dram shops”). These provisions create a 

legal liability for harms caused by patrons whom the shops served after they were already 

intoxicated. The economic incentives and disincentives related to this liability risk have 

been used as part of the group of incentives behind interventions to limit alcohol-related 

problems, such as highlighting the need for training about responsible serving practices.61

Package of Civil Measures

As is apparent from the discussion of particular civil remedies, legislation may incorporate 

a number of these civil remedies into one package of possible responses. One example that 

demonstrated this approach was used in Maricopa County, Arizona, to persuade landlords 

to deal with suspected repetitive criminal activities by their tenants by focusing on nuisance 

abatement as the primary measure (see “Anti-Slum Packet” box on page 26).
| 26 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

“Anti-Slum Packet”

Place: Maricopa County, Arizona

Civil Remedy: Arizona Law (A.R.S. §§12-991-12-999)

The Maricopa County Attorney produced a set of documents to encourage local residents and neighborhood 

associations to use a criminal abatement statute (A.R.S. §§12-991-12-999) to eliminate suspected drug houses from 

their areas. The statute was broad enough, however, to include in the definition of a “nuisance” “residential property 

that is regularly used in the commission of a crime” (A.R.S. §12-991).

Although this was called an “anti-slum packet,” most of the material in it focused on the process and tools for 

bringing a civil action to address crime rather than disorder or physical deterioration. The statute requires property 

owners to take certain steps to deal with repetitive crime that is occurring on their property—whether used for 

residential or commercial purposes. If, after receiving notice of the repetitive crime problem, the owner does not take 

steps to rectify the problem, then the city prosecutor can seek a civil injunction requiring him or her to do so. If, after 

an investigation, the county attorney finds that the owner has violated the civil injunction, then the owner can be 

prosecuted for a felony. The statute also calls for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, which is served on 

the legal occupant of the property and includes a right to a hearing in court. The statute also allows the court to issue 

a permanent civil injunction, appoint a temporary receiver to manage or operate the property, award expenses, and 

impose a civil monetary penalty. The property may also be closed. Notice of the abatement action must be filed with 

the county recorder and the action applies to future owners. 

Local residents were encouraged to assist in this process by: 

1. Observing and monitoring the activities they see occurring at the rental property 

2. Using standardized reporting forms to document this information

3. Searching county property records to identify who owns this property

4. Mailing a letter to the owner describing the activities, the owner’s responsibilities, and the potential consequences 

of a failure to act to deal with these activities

5. Sending copies of these documents to the local police department for further investigation

The statute (A.R.S. §12-991) allows not only the attorney general or any city or county attorney to sue, but any 

resident of the county or city affected by the nuisance can also bring the action in court. 

The website packet included model letters for police departments and local residents or neighborhood associations to 

use, as well as guidelines and forms for recording crime incidents and newspaper clippings highlighting the potential 

consequences of a failure to act.

Another statute (A.R S. §§33-1901–33-1905) discussed in this packet from the Maricopa County Attorney deals with 

the registration of property ownership, the definition of a “slum property” as property meeting specific conditions that 

pose a danger to public health and safety, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to address these problems.

Source: Maricopa County Attorney (n.d.)
| 27 |

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies 

Developing a comprehensive plan for the use of civil remedies to address local crime 

problems might begin as a by-product of a specific problem-oriented policing project, or 

a wider police- or prosecution-management initiative. No matter which way the initiative 

develops within your area, you will need to have both the organizational capacity to deal 

with the various tasks required to address each problem and the problem-solving expertise 

for figuring out what responses will work for each problem and who needs to carry them 

out. Because different types of skills, knowledge, and expertise exist within different parts 

of your jurisdiction, you should expect to work in partnership with other governmental 

agencies and members of your local community.

Building Civil Remedies Capacity within Local Government and in 

the Community

Many of the studies reviewed for this publication either had conditions that demonstrated 

that the crime enforcement measures being used were not adequate for solving the crime 

or disorder problem,62 or had some type of community crisis that focused attention on the 

need for a crime prevention intervention.63 If your community or department has not had 

a major event that focused attention on the need for civil remedies, then there are several 

types of things that you will probably need to do to facilitate their successful use.

A 1994 review64 of civil remedy use in crime prevention set out five recommendations 

for the effective use of civil remedies: 1) find appropriate legislation, 2) secure competent 

staff, 3) develop close police-prosecutor collaboration, 4) involve other public agencies, 

and 5) involve the community. These recommendations are discussed here in terms 

of including needed collaborators, developing staff expertise, and enacting appropriate 

legislation. 

While this discussion assumes that the police will take the lead in these initiatives, this will 

not always be true. Local prosecutors can also lead the problem-solving process through 

a community prosecution unit. For example, a 2003 study examined 36 community 

prosecution programs operating in the United States between 1985 and 2000 and nearly 

half of them used some type of nuisance abatement, eviction, or trespass program to 

address “quality of life” offenses, nuisances, or drug-related crimes.65

Including Needed Collaborators

Three types of collaborations will be required, depending on the type of civil remedy used: 

government attorneys, other agency staff (such as housing, fire, building, and zoning), and 

the local community. 
| 28 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Collaborators need to make sure that all parties understand the legal and organizational 

limits to their own and the other parties’ powers. If you know what different agencies are 

allowed to do, and what triggers action by them, you can begin to develop plans for dealing 

with common crime and disorder problems. This should also allow you to make joint 

decisions about how the civil remedies can or must be implemented.

The inclusion of the local community can be essential in planning as well as inspection 

and enforcement. This should include listening to community complaints about particular 

problems; bringing the community on board at the planning stage to help prevent later 

opposition; gaining community assistance in identifying, documenting and preventing 

crime incidents; and monitoring the initiative’s progress.66

Crimes, crime patterns, and communities do change. Employees leave their jobs. Therefore, 

reviews of these partnerships should be seen as part of the collaborative process and should 

be revamped, as needed. For example, in Seattle, four assistant city attorneys were deployed 

among Seattle’s five police precincts to strengthen the city’s efforts at managing increasingly 

problematic public safety and regulatory issues in a program that was a redesigned extension 

of a previous program.67

Developing Staff Expertise

Look for high-quality staff (police personnel, prosecutors, and government regulating 

agency staff) that can be trained to do the job, and will stay for a suitable period to prevent 

having to train new staff continuously. Staff attorneys involved in community prosecution 

partnerships need to have a community-oriented approach, according to recent research, not 

just traditional prosecutorial skills.68 An example of specialized staff assignments in police 

departments occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, where two officers were reassigned from their 

regular duties to focus their efforts solely on crime abatement of nuisance properties. One 

officer trained managers and owners about landlord-tenant law and responsible propertymanagement practices and recommended property-security improvements, while the other 

identified nuisance properties and took enforcement action where necessary.69 Similarly, 

policing staff in Indio, California, had to become experts in the California law of foreclosure 

to carry out its foreclosure registration program to address blighted and nuisance property.70

Securing competent staff with the needed expertise does not necessarily mean that programs 

will be able to hire additional staff. A 1998 study reported that most abatement programs 

were run by government attorneys and police departments, which operated without special 

funding.71
| 29 |

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies

Finding and Enacting Appropriate Legislation 

Once you and your partners understand the general powers of each group, you will be 

better able to identify whether existing legislation will enable you to apply sufficient 

pressure on property owners or tenants to modify conditions closely associated with crime 

and disorder. You may need to amend existing legislation or pass new legislation if the 

current remedies are not flexible enough to address your problems. You may also find other 

more appropriate legislation being used elsewhere that you think should be available in 

your jurisdiction. 

In addition to these steps, it is also important for government agencies to be able to find 

out who is responsible for the property by consulting either an existing registry of property 

owners in this jurisdiction that can be used for notification purposes, or—on foreclosed 

properties—a listing of all of the parties who have an interest in that property.72 Jurisdictions 

may need to develop these registries if they do not exist, since it may be difficult to serve 

notice on parties and gain any type of voluntary cooperation without them. 

While some of these recommendations, such as involving the community, apply even when 

the initiative does not involve a civil remedy, most of these are specifically applicable to the 

use of civil remedies.

Constraints on and Considerations about the Scope of Civil 

Remedies Use

General constraints are discussed in this section, as are crime- and place-specific 

considerations that are more directly related to particular types of crime or places.

Protected Rights

Civil remedies must be framed in a way that does not infringe on a fundamental right of 

the targeted person(s) or groups, such as the right to due process, just compensation, free 

speech, and free association. Civil remedies can be controversial if they are not framed to 

address only crimes or disorderly behavior, or behaviors that are clearly linked to criminal 

actions or safety hazards. 
| 30 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Non-offending Parties 

Some of the enforcement consequences of civil remedy use may fall to non-offending 

parties, such as families with children who were living in apartment complexes that have 

been closed down. Intervention planners should look at their initiatives and have additional 

information and resources available to address these potential unintended enforcement 

consequences. For example, are there enough properties for those eligible for subsidized 

housing to move into? This was a problem for the Chicago Housing Authority’s Anti-Drug 

Initiative that used HOPE VI federal grants.73

Notice

Most civil legal provisions will contain a requirement for the party seeking redress to 

provide notice of the action to the other party or parties, but these requirements may be 

limited with certain types of proceedings (as with some temporary injunctions). Even if this 

results in the owners eventually getting their day in court, however, not all of the parties 

with interests in the outcome (e.g., tenants in the building) may know what is going on. 

If the notice requirement is not particularly strict (e.g., notices published in a newspaper), 

then you should consider adopting a stricter standard (e.g., certified letter sent to a 

registered address, or personal service, in addition to posting the notice on the property 

itself).74 Inadequate notice could potentially trigger legal challenges as well as engender 

opposition from groups within the community whose support is needed for the measure to 

be a success. 

Level of Proof

In addition to the variety of actions that are available as civil remedies, the lower level of 

proof required for civil actions (in comparison to the proof beyond a reasonable doubt 

required for criminal prosecutions) makes them an attractive regulatory mechanism for 

policing agencies to use. 

Furthermore, the standards are not necessarily identical at all stages within a civil action. As 

with criminal prosecutions, the level of proof needed to initiate an action tends to be lower 

than that required by the court before issuing a civil penalty. For example, Arizona’s crime 

abatement statutes (described earlier as the “Anti-Slum Packet”) require only a “reason to 

believe that a nuisance described...exists” (A.R.S. §12-991 B.) for the action to be brought, 

but later provisions require that the court assess a civil penalty only where the person against 

whom the penalty is assessed “knew or had reason to know of the criminal activity” (A.R.S. 

§12-991 C.). 
| 31 |

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies

In addition, these “knowledge” requirements often refer to the knowledge of an existing 

physical disorder problem or of the complaints about drug crimes occurring on the 

premises. They do not focus on establishing that an illegal activity has occurred.75

Understanding these distinctions is an important part of the staff preparation needed for 

using civil remedies for crime prevention purposes. 

Partnerships 

Successful implementation of these types of remedies depends on police developing good 

working relationships with inspectors, community groups, business owners, and other 

city employees. From the planning stage through to the response and evaluation stages, 

police need to maximize the potential for positive outcomes—and minimize adverse sideeffects—by ensuring they both understand and manage the burdens and consequences for 

their partners. Giving consideration as to how the partnership might best deliver equitable 

and fair crime control responses requires police to cast objectives in a broad and positive 

manner. An initial mutual agreement of the objectives will minimize the potential for 

conflict, avoid exacerbation of long-standing divisions, and ensure that divergent interests 

don’t undermine the capacity for fair, legitimate, and acceptable crime control outcomes.76

Regulatory Standards

Historically, the level of enforcement of housing codes has been found to vary because, 

among other things, codes are complex, staffing levels are often inadequate, inspectors have 

a large amount of discretion, and the resources of many owners are inadequate to bring 

the conditions up to the code’s standards—and inspectors are aware of this.77 You need to 

understand as much as you can about the culture of each department’s code enforcement in 

their municipality so that you can assess whether the department will be able to meet the 

standards required for the successful application of the planned civil remedies, should the 

possibility of their use alone be insufficient to change the crime-opportunity structure of 

the targeted places. 

Selective Enforcement Claims

Those targeted by civil remedies may claim in court that they have been unfairly singled 

out for special enforcement actions. Documenting your actions should help you address 

these types of claims. For example, you may be able to show: (a) the number and types of 

complaints by members of the local community, (b) comparison data about calls for service 

and arrests for this location and other similar locations, and (c) information about notice 

given to the complaining party and his or her failure(s) to comply. 
| 32 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Compliance 

Part of providing notice that civil remedies may be used in a particular situation can also 

involve creating incentives for property owners to clean up their homes, tenancies, or 

businesses. You should determine if there is landlord support for the anti-crime initiatives78

and assess the likelihood that they will be able to make the types of changes needed if they 

do not get some type of financial assistance. The possibility that the repairs cannot be 

made economically by any party should be considered prior to enforcement activities since 

condemnation and demolition of the property would then need to be added to the group of 

potential responses. 

Initiatives such as landlord training and financial support for rehabilitating code violation 

properties may enhance the chances of long-term success for place-oriented crime-control 

strategies. Phoenix police offered training to “slumlords” in the Crime Free Multi-Housing 

Program. If this training was refused, enforcement action was taken through the nuisance 

abatement statute or the use of zoning ordinances. Owners could be criminally charged 

with a felony of “failing to abate a crime.” Results indicated that crime was reduced by 

almost one-third in targeted neighborhoods.79 Similarly, the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

developed a training manual designed for police to use in their development of a 6–8 hour 

training package for property owners, which covered issues such as: keeping neighborhoods 

healthy, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, screening 

applicants, rental agreements and eviction, property management, warning signs of drug 

activity, and working with the police (among other things).80

Determining Problem-Specific Civil Remedies

In addition to developing an overall capacity in your community to use civil remedies, 

you will need to develop a process for determining what particular remedies are most 

appropriate to address specific crime and disorder problems. Problem-oriented policing 

provides you with a general framework for analyzing problems in ways that will help you 

understand whether a civil remedy is likely to be an effective response to the problem, 

and if so, which remedy or combination of remedies. Understanding step by step how 

particular crimes are committed will assist you in identifying situational crime prevention 

(SCP) measures that can be implemented to block each step or make it more difficult for 

an offender to complete it.81 One useful technique for analyzing how crime and disorder 

problems occur is the “crime script.” Appendix A describes in detail how to use the crimescript technique in the context of civil remedies.
| 33 |

Planning for the Use of Civil Remedies

Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits

When planning any prevention initiative, the potential for crime displacement and diffusion 

of crime-prevention benefits needs to be addressed in a systematic manner.† When considering 

the use of place-focused civil remedies to disrupt opportunity-related conditions for crime, you 

should be particularly attuned to place-related aspects of both displacement and diffusion. 

In practice, in terms of displacement, this means that you need to consider whether 

the reach of the proposed initiative will likely be great enough to prevent the successful 

movement of crime commission to another location. If there is some displacement, how 

does it compare to any change in crime at the targeted locations? Although displacement 

tends to be limited, it was found to be a problem in one study in relation to the securing of 

abandoned property.82

Similarly, in terms of diffusion of crime-prevention benefits, you need to consider whether 

the effects of potentially using a civil remedy will be spread to other places not directly 

targeted by the initiative. If a diffusion of benefits is expected with these remedies, is there 

any way to increase the likelihood of this happening, such as through the use of publicity?‡

Four other types of displacement are possible: Will offenders be able to change the manner

in which they commit the crime? Would changing the time of the crime commission be 

possible? Is there another victim (or target) who could be attacked (or targeted)? Might the 

offender be likely to switch to the commission of another crime? Again, similarly, there are 

four corresponding types of diffusion of crime-control benefits that can occur.

These questions should be asked in relation to each crime script likely to be carried out 

in the place where the initiative will be targeted. If these crimes are readily displaced in 

one of these ways, then you need to take this into account prior to start up. Moreover, if 

you developed crime scripts, you may also find it easier to consider whether other crimes 

besides the targeted crime are likely to be occurring at the targeted locations because of the 

opportunities presented there. If these other crimes are likely to be affected by the potential 

use of civil remedies, then this would be considered a diffusion of crime-control benefits. 

Maximizing this diffusion effect should become part of the planned initiative, if resources 

to do so are available.

Finally, while it may not be possible to measure all of the potential displacement or 

diffusion effects, this is not a good reason for failing to analyze at least some of the most 

likely displacement or diffusion possibilities related to your responses.

† See Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion for more on this topic.

‡ For more on the use of publicity in crime prevention, see Response Guide No. 5, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
| 34 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Appendix A: An Expanded Script Approach 

for Use with Civil Remedies

Understanding step by step how particular crimes are committed will assist you in 

identifying situational crime prevention (SCP) measures that can be implemented to 

block each step of the crime or make it more difficult for an offender to complete it.83

This crime-script approach can be laid out in a diagram or table (see Tables A1 and A2), 

with columns setting out the general stages of the crime (column 1), the linked offender 

actions (column 2), and responses (column 3), which are usually SCP measures.† The other 

columns set out can be used for detailed planning of a prevention initiative.

To use this table (or construct one of your own to aid in planning your problem responses), 

first look at the stages of the crime (the “script action” column). Do not focus only on 

the stage in which the crime is actually done (the “doing” stage) since you may be able 

to interrupt it at an earlier stage and limit the harm done. Once you have focused on a 

particular stage or script action, then you can look at what you might be able to do to 

prevent this action from occurring. To do this, look across that row and note the types of 

controls you might use to change an offender’s actions. Note that you will be considering 

who could carry out these controls, and how they might operate in practice. Keep in mind 

that this is a tool for your use; you are not required to fill in every box or consider every 

possibility, but the more information you have, the more comprehensive and effective your 

responses will be.

This approach is very flexible and permits the number of factors that can be linked to 

an SCP response measure to be expanded, which is particularly useful for helping you 

visualize the role of a civil remedy in the crime-prevention process. For example, the type 

of intervener (usually a multi-agency partnership), the focus of the SCP control (usually 

the place for these remedies), the medium of control or third party (usually the “controller” 

of the place or “place manager,” using routine activity theory concepts84), the type of 

inducement (a civil remedy, criminal penalty, or a non-coercive incentive), and other 

dimensions of the measures (such as the mechanism by which the SCP works) can be 

included in the expanded table (see Tables A1 and A2).85

† A blank table appears in Appendix B as Table B1.
| 35 |

Appendixes 

This type of expanded crime script may be particularly good for you to use when: 

(a) one single technique is unlikely to be able to block the crime in the setting where the 

prevention initiative is needed, (b) more than one person controls a setting, or (c) more 

than one agency will be called on to enforce the remedy to help stop the crime. The 

scripts described here—drug crimes in housing, and alcohol-related disorder or violence 

around bars and pubs†—are general crime scripts for crimes that are frequently the focus 

of property-related civil remedies. Note that the particular type of civil remedy that can 

be used appears in the “Situational Controls” column. In the example of a drug crime 

sale in public housing (Table A1), the civil remedies that could be used include tenancy 

agreements that could result in eviction and nuisance abatement actions. In the example 

of alcohol-related disorder in an entertainment district (Table A2), civil remedies related to 

zoning and licensing requirements are illustrated.

† See Appendixes C and D for more examples of the use of place-based civil remedies for these two types of crime- and placespecific problems.
| 36 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Table A1. Expanded Crime Script: Hypothetical Anti-Drug Campaign in Public Housing 

(See Appendix C)

Scene/

Function

Script 

Action

Situational 

Controls Mechanism Type of 

Intervener

Focus of 

Control

Medium of 

Control

Type of 

Inducement

Inducement 

Enforcer

Preparation Find friend/ 

relative with 

apartment

Lease with 

anti-drug/ crime 

tenancy condition

Increase the 

effort

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Tenant and 

apartment 

manager

Criminal law or 

Civil remedy

Government 

agency

Entry Move 

belongings 

into 

apartment

Concierge

Limited access 

to premises 

Tenant controls

Increase the 

effort

Apartment 

owner/ 

manager

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Tenants and 

apartment 

manager

Non-coercive 

inducement

Apartment 

owner/manager

Pre-condition Locate and 

buy drugs

Street-level 

enforcement

Increase the risk Local law 

enforcement

Numerous Numerous Criminal law Government 

agency

Instrumental 

Pre-condition

Bring drugs 

to apartment

Drug dogs owned 

by apartment 

security

Increase the risk Apartment 

owner/

manager

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Apartment 

manager and 

security

Non-coercive 

inducement

Apartment 

owner/manager

Instrumental 

Initiation

Bring 

customers 

into 

apartment 

complex

Concierge

Limited access to 

premises

Tenant patrols

Increase the 

effort

Apartment 

owner/ 

manager 

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Other tenants 

and apartment 

manager

Non-coercive 

inducement or 

Civil remedy

Apartment 

owner/manager

Instrumental 

Actualization

Let customer 

sample drugs

Tenant reports of 

nuisance needing 

abatement

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Other tenants 

and apartment 

manager

Criminal law or 

Civil remedy

Government 

agency

Doing Sell drugs Anti-drug tenancy 

condition

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Tenant and 

apartment 

manager

Criminal law or 

Civil remedy

Government 

agency

PostconditionHave 

customers 

leave

Limited exits 

Screening by 

apartment drug 

dogs 

Tenant patrols

Increase the risk Apartment 

owner/ 

manager

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Tenants, 

apartment 

manager, and 

security

Non-coercive 

inducement

Apartment 

owner/manager

Exit/No Exit Continue 

selling

Eviction 

proceeding 

against tenant

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Apartment 

manager

Criminal law or 

Civil remedy

Government 

agency

Source: Adapted from Smith (forthcoming; 1998) and Cornish (1994) 

See Appendix B (Table B2) to use when planning an initiative.
| 37 |

Appendixes 

Table A2. Expanded Crime Script: Hypothetical Alcohol-Related Disorder Campaign in an 

Entertainment District (See Appendix D) 

Scene/

Function

Script 

Action

Situational 

Controls Mechanism Type of 

Intervener

Focus of 

Control

Medium of 

Control

Type of 

Inducement

Inducement 

Enforcer

Preparation Choose 

venue with 

many pubs

Zoning laws that 

spread out liquor 

venues

Increase the 

effort

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Inspector Civil remedy Government 

agency

Entry Go in & out 

of several 

pubs in area

Monitor & limit 

number of entries 

per person

Increase the 

effort

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Bar staff/manager

Non-coercive 

inducement/ 

Industry 

agreement

Bar industry/ 

Individual 

business

Pre-condition Drink 

discounted 

alcohol

Prohibit alcohol 

discounting

Increase the 

effort

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Inspector Civil remedy Government 

agency

Instrumental 

Pre-condition

Drink over 

personal 

limit

Train staff 

to recognize 

intoxication

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Inspector/Bar 

manager 

Civil remedy/ 

Civil liability 

Government 

agency/Individual business

Instrumental 

Initiation

Run into 

or knock 

possible 

opponent(s)

Alter the 

physical layout of 

amenities

Decrease the 

reward

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Bar staff/manager

Non-coercive 

inducement/ 

Industry 

agreement

Individual 

business

Instrumental 

Actualization

Get into 

argument

Train staff to 

identify trouble 

quickly

Decrease the 

reward

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Bar staff/manager

Non-coercive 

inducement/ 

Industry 

agreement

Bar industry/ 

Individual 

business

Doing Get into fight Train staff to 

respond to calm 

situation

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Bar staff/manager

Non-coercive 

inducement/ 

Industry 

agreement

Bar industry/ 

Individual 

business

PostconditionBoast to 

mates in 

facility

Remove 

combatants from 

bar after calming

Increase the risk Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Bar staff/manager

Non-coercive 

inducement

Individual 

business

Exit/No Exit Loiter outside Bar from other 

establishments

Use public 

transport

Increase the risk

Reduce the 

reward

Multi-agency 

partners

Scene/

place

Place manager—

Other bar staff & 

Transport agency

Industry 

agreement

Civil contract

Bar industry 

Government 

agency

Source: Adapted from Smith (forthcoming; 1998), Cornish (1994), and Macintyre and Homel (1997) and 

Felson et al. (1997) 

See Appendix B (Table B2) to use when planning an initiative.

This type of expanded script is probably most important to use for planning, where gaining 

a consistent, shared perspective on how the pieces fit together is crucial for the project, but 

it can also be used during the implementation period, and for the evaluation. Here is a 

checklist that can be used with the blank table (Table B2). Table B1 may be useful as well 

in helping you determine how each remedy will work.
| 38 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Planning process (part of the “Analysis” phase of the SARA model):

•	 Locate places that your previous scanning has identified as important, such as those that 

have repeated crimes occurring there. 

•	 Begin developing a working script for each type of crime at each of these locations. 

Develop more than one script for a broad crime category if these crimes involve 

different stages or elements. 

•	 Elaborate the crime scripts as you get more information. 

•	 Don’t forget to talk to local residents and other community stakeholders, as they are 

your eyes on the street.

•	 Be situation specific. 

•	 Find a targeted location that is subject to close government regulation—e.g., public 

housing or licensed premises selling alcohol—or one that is in such disrepair that it 

poses a public nuisance (e.g., a public safety hazard). Civil remedies are most likely to 

apply to these types of places. 

•	 Seek contacts in potential partner agencies (e.g., housing departments, state liquor 

licensing bureaus) and community groups (with a stake in solving the problem) to add 

to the planning process. 

•	 Identify responses likely to be effective in stopping each stage of the crime or disorder 

problem. 

•	 Determine which of these is likely to be essential to stopping the crime and make sure 

these are included in the planned initiative.

•	 Among the other responses, look for those that involve fewer resources, are less 

expensive to use, and are easier to implement, but only choose these if they appear likely 

to work. Beware of false economies that may cost little but waste time, energy, and those 

resources that are used.

•	 Keep in mind that you will need to identify a control site for use in a later evaluation.

•	 Identify and measure any crime displacement or diffusion of crime control benefits.
| 39 |

Appendixes 

Implementation process (part of the “Response” phase of the SARA model): 

•	 Target each response at the actor who can control or change the situation. 

•	 Identify the agency(ies)—and who in the agency—that is (are) enforcing these controls 

through the possibility of civil legal action.

•	 Make sure the agency(ies) has (have) the requisite expertise and capacity to provide legal 

notice of the potential use of the civil remedy, as well as to enforce it (if needed).

•	 Publicize any successes.†

•	 Talk to community members and line officers. 

•	 Check that each response is being addressed as planned. If it is not, identify what 

appears to be impeding the process.

•	 Modify the response or add more resources, as needed.

Evaluation process (“Assessment” phase of SARA model):

•	 Look at calls for service and arrests, talk to local residents and business owners, measure 

relevant visible signs of disorder or crime occurrences.

•	 Identify which parts of the crime or disorder problem were inhibited and which were 

not. 

•	 Determine whether crime (or disorder) fell in the targeted location(s) and in the control 

site(s).

•	 Tally the overall costs of the project, as well as the benefits.

•	 Evaluate whether there was any crime displacement and, if you found any, how 

extensive it was.‡

•	 Make sure that you document any crime control benefits that diffused to other 

locations or to non-targeted crime problems.

† See Response Guide No. 5, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

‡ See Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.
| 40 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

As noted above, it is clear from looking at an expanded crime script that achieving a 

successful outcome may lead to the use of several different types of measures in addition to 

property-focused civil remedies. The exact combination of measures will differ from place 

to place, based on the needs and resources available. This “package of measures” approach, 

however, usually presents problems for measuring the success of particular aspects of the 

problem-solving initiative (the evaluation process or “Assessment” phase of SARA model). It 

is difficult to disentangle the effects of changes that were put into effect at roughly the same 

time. This may help explain why relatively few rigorous evaluations have been carried out 

on the use of civil remedies in crime prevention.86 If the initiatives are introduced in phases, 

however, it may be possible to determine whether the initial measure used was sufficient by 

itself to reduce the crime and disorder in an area or at a venue.
| 41 |

Appendixes 

Appendix B: Blank Tables to Use in Planning 

an Initiative Using a Civil Remedy

The two blank tables in this section should allow you to organize the information you will 

need to develop an understanding of the legal aspects of civil remedy use (Table B1) and 

of the place of these civil remedies in a larger crime prevention initiative (Table B2). These 

tables are tools and not every category set out will apply to your crime or disorder problem. 

You should adapt them to serve your needs.

Table B1 sets out some of the major features of any civil remedy as they relate to use in 

crime and disorder prevention. You, in consultation with collaborating attorney partners in 

your jurisdiction, can use this framework to organize what is available in your jurisdiction 

currently, as well as aiding you in the future by helping you decide what you need to have 

future legislation provide. 

Table B2 sets out a blank expanded crime script for you to use in planning how to use the 

civil remedies as part of a larger, more comprehensive, and potentially more effective crime 

prevention initiative. 
| 42 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Table B1. Features of Civil Remedies Currently Available (or Needed) in Your Jurisdiction—

Blank Table to be Filled in

Civil Remedy

Exact 

Legal Basis 

(Statute/ 

Case Law)

Who Can 

Bring the 

Action

(All Eligible 

Parties)

Who is 

Targeted 

by the 

Action

What 

Steps are 

Needed 

(In Order)

Partners 

Needed 

at Each 

Step

Types of 

Evidence 

Allowed

Desired 

Outcomes

Projected 

Costs

Advantages and 

Disadvantages

Remedies Currently Available

Code 

Enforcement

Zoning

Nuisance 

abatement

Eviction

Trespass

Civil injunction

Receivership

Condemnation

Negligence

Dram Shop

Needed Remedies
| 43 |

Appendixes 

Table B2. Blank Expanded Crime Script: For Use in Programs Using Civil Remedies 

Scene/Function Script 

Action

Situational 

Controls Mechanism Type of Intervener

Focus of 

Control

Medium of 

Control

Type of 

Inducement

Inducement 

Enforcer

Preparation

Entry

Pre-condition

Instrumental 

Pre-condition

Instrumental 

Initiation

Instrumental 

Actualization

Doing

Post-condition

Exit/No Exit

Source: Adapted from Smith (forthcoming; 1998) and Cornish (1994) 
| 44 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Appendix C: Applying Property-Related 

Civil Remedies to Drug Crime in Public and 

Private Housing

This section of the guide provides brief summaries (see Table C1) of initiatives in which 

police or third parties used civil remedies to target property where drug crime was suspected 

or known to be taking place. These places can be located in residential, industrial, or 

commercial areas and can include the following: 

•	 Common areas located within public housing estates

•	 Commercial venues 

•	 Privately owned property (owner occupied or rented)

•	 Abandoned buildings, which may or may not still have an owner

Most of the evaluations discussed here, however, involve either public or private housing. 

One of the problems identified is some form of drug crime. Many of the more recent 

studies used a problem-oriented policing approach. The limited number of rigorous 

evaluations of initiatives involving multi-agency responses and third parties in dealing with 

crime and disorder issues, including drug crimes, has been raised by a number of authors.87
| 45 

|

Appendixes 

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Code Enforcement

Center Court Project (Joliet Police Department 1996)Place: City of Joliet, Illinois

Building code and health and safety regulations

•	Police reviewed calls for service in a high crime 

and disorder area. Over 50% of calls came from two apartment buildings.

•	Four rival gangs living there were responsible for 

the more serious incidents, including drug dealing and violence. 

•	Previous enforcement had involved crime reports 

and arrests. 

•	Police suggested to owner and manager ways to 

reduce crime and disorder. All suggestions were ignored, despite promises to rectify. 

•	Inspectors found over 100 violations and issued 

orders for the owner to fix the problems. 

•	After 90 days, the owner failed to take action. •	Inspection process was repeated. •	A third inspection yielded 37 pages of violations. •	City ordered owner to close both buildings.

•	Owner sold the properties and residents were 

temporarily relocated. 

•	New owners renovated the interior and exterior 

of the buildings, fenced and landscaped the property, established security procedures, and reopened the buildings. (Cost $1,000,000)

•	All former residents relocated, but were 

free to re-apply for leases at the renovated apartments.

•	The community was happy.

•	If police work with residents to assist them 

with making temporary arrangements for relocation while repairs are underway
| 46 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Reducing Crime and Disorder at Motels and Hotels (Chula Vista Police Department 2009)Place: Chula Vista, California

Permit ordinance was developed to deal with problem motels. Motels were required to get a city permit to operate, which was given if certain standards were met.

•	Business organizations asked the city for help in 

dealing with quality and safety issues in a large number of Chula Vista’s motels. 

•	Despite increased police enforcement, problems 

persisted.

•	Police collaborated with other city staff and 

business groups and developed a POP project.

•	Project team identified the problem as managers 

and owners choosing not to deal with the issues in their premises.

•	First responses: (1) Police Code Enforcement and 

the Chamber of Commerce worked together to educate motel owners and managers how best to manage their properties to control crime; and (2) Code Enforcement staff instituted annual inspection program.

•	These had little effect on motel conditions.•	Police, the city Attorney’s Office, and the city’s 

Planning and Building, Community Development, Finance and Fire Departments developed an ordinance that enabled the city to hold motels accountable for meeting calls-for-service criteria that were based on public safety performance standards.

•	Calls for service to Chula Vista motels declined 

by 49%; Violent crimes and crimes against persons fell by 49%; Part I and Part II crimes declined by 70%; Drug arrests decreased by 66%.

•	The quality and appearance of several motels 

improved dramatically.

•	Motel management practices improved.•	The number of motel rooms that did not meet 

basic safety standards declined from at least 378 to 0.

•	Aggregate transient occupancy tax reported to 

the city increased.

•	Only 2 of the 24 motels requesting operating 

permits did not clearly meet the required standard. 

•	If police work with other city staff and 

business groups to develop appropriate standards and methods to regulate motel conditions

Nuisance Abatement

Leadership role:Seattle Police Department(Ferguson and Fitzsimons 1990)Place: Seattle, Washington

Drug Abatement Statute (passed in 1988), popularly known as the Expedited Eviction Law

•	Drug (“rock”) houses were identified.•	Drug abatement remedy was used that included 

evictions.

•	In two-year period, 625 abatement actions 

were filed on “rock” houses.

•	Only 87 of these resulted in action beyond 

owner- resolution agreements. 

•	Nineteen abatement actions were filed in court, 

resulting in full property closure at 13 locations. 

•	In 38 of the cases, some agreement was 

eventually reached with the owner, including 7 voluntary closures.

•	Almost 90% of drug activity at the targeted 

premises was resolved. 

•	Despite a displacement effect, the outcome 

was considered effective in destabilizing the crack cocaine sellers.

•	If the occupier is not the owner. This is 

because owner-resolution agreements are difficult to obtain with owner-occupied dwellings if there is a high probability of proceeding to a closure of the property. 

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 47 |

Appendixes 

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

SMART (Specialized Multi-Agency Response Teams) Program (Green 1996) and (Mazerolle et al. 1998)Place: Oakland, California 

Section 11570 of the California Health and Safety Code, which defines the use of a building for drug purposes as a nuisance. 

•	Coordinated inspections by building, utility, and 

health and safety agencies. 

•	Infringements were identified.•	Letter was sent to property owner.•	Team worked with landlords to evict tenants 

suspected of drug crime.

•	After one year the number of calls for service 

rose at a lower rate at the targeted properties.

•	Effects were not sustained after this period.

•	When traditional enforcement strategies are 

employed in combination with alternative civil law strategies

•	At highly visible business premises where 

owners may have the most to lose by not cooperating

6100 Block of Charlotte Avenue Project (Kansas City Police Department 1995).Place: Kansas City, Missouri

Drug abatement action; civil nuisance lawsuit

•	Police identified a problem property owned by a 

vulnerable elderly man. Teenagers stayed at his house. Large number of calls for service on the block.

•	Block was targeted as a POP project. •	Police organized the people in the block and 

instructed them on how to detect suspicious activity and keep a log.

•	Police gave residents a business card with 

pager numbers and explained they could contact officers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Block residents made use of this and provided important information to police on an ongoing basis.

•	Police contacted Missouri Department of Aging, 

but caseworker found owner was not sufficiently incompetent to be removed. Owner refused suggested alternatives.

•	Police officers contacted Jackson County Drug 

Abatement Response Team (DART) who visited the owner and explained about the drugs recovered from the teenagers staying in his house. Owner remained unconvinced.

•	Following another arrest for drug possession (after 

a tip off from a local resident), house was vacated and posted as uninhabitable—having over 30 code violations.

•	Residents filed civil nuisance lawsuit to deny 

owner option to move back into his property.

•	Police met with owner and explained his available 

options.

•	Owner decided to sell the house. •	House bought by a new owner-occupier within 

one day.

•	Neighbors and police worked with new owner 

to fix the exterior of the house.

•	Training session was held for residents on 

crime prevention and home security.

•	Enforcement activities were carried out and 

burglars arrested.

•	Property crimes on the block decreased by 60%.•	Police officers involved in resolving the 

problems on the block are rewarded by residents with a special dinner and award.

•	One of the residents received an award from 

the police and City Council.

•	Quality of life for all residents improved.

•	When a good working partnership is built 

between police and neighborhood residents

•	When residents are trained by the police to 

assist them

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 48 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Leadership role: Drug abatement response teams (DART)(Eck 1998)Place: San Diego, California

Abatement legislation

•	Drug abatement program, involving eviction of 

tenants in premises involved in drug dealing.

•	Several different techniques were used to inform 

landowners about the crime problems and the responses to be used. 

•	Experiment involved 121 private rental properties.

•	Most effective response: where police met 

directly with landowners to discuss the drug crime on their property (and the eviction of the drug dealer).

•	Second most effective response: where a letter 

was sent to landowner requesting them to take measures to deal with the drug dealing on their property.

•	Least effective response: no police contact with 

the property owner at all.

•	When police contact owners directly about 

the crime problem

The Question of Independent Living(San Diego Police Department 2000)Place: San Diego, California

Notice of potential use of abatement; Notice of potential use of civil lawsuit under Safe Street Now Act; and Eviction

•	Police saw a rapid rise in calls for service at an 

apartment complex that had been converted from single-family apartments to an independent living facility for people with mental disabilities. 

•	Police found that the manager was a convicted 

felon with an extensive drug history. 

•	Police found that independent living facilities came 

under strict government guidelines, but these were being violated. By California standards, the apartment complex should have been classified as a board and care/group home with definite license provisions.

•	However, State Community Care Licensing was 

only interested if there was evidence that the residents were incapable of independent living. Crime and health were considered a local matter for the city.

•	After meeting with police, leaseholder agreed to 

fire the manager, but instead gave him control of all the resident’s medications.

•	Police approached the owner who indicated that it 

was not his problem.

•	Neighbors notified the leaseholder of a potential 

civil lawsuit.

•	State Community Care intervened and found 

numerous regulatory violations.

•	Police notified the owner of a potential abatement 

process that could lead to forfeiture of the property.

•	The owner evicted all residents and sold the 

property.

•	Calls for service in the neighborhood nearly 

ceased—from a high of 23 per month to a low of 2 per month.

•	If police form a partnership with government 

agencies and members of the community

•	If police explore all avenues and are 

tenacious in solving the cause of the problem

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 49 |

Appendixes 

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Municipal Drug Engagement Program (MDGE) pilot program, an “experimental supplement” to the existing Strategic Inspections Task Force (SITF) program(Higgins and Coldren 2000)Place: Chicago, Illinois

Modified municipal nuisance abatement ordinance allowing the city to hold landlords accountable for some of the criminal activities of their tenants

•	Department of Buildings inspected buildings (with 

documented drug and gang problems) for safety and code violations.

•	Multi-staged response by the city that included: (1) 

discussions with the property owner (2) issuance of an abatement notice (to the owner) requiring that action be taken to address the issue (3) if no action was taken, a notice to appear in court was to be issued (4) the case was referred to city attorneys for prosecution.

•	While the program had a significant impact 

on levels of criminal activity over a 28-month period, the evaluation was limited and researchers cautioned about making sweeping statements about its success. 

•	When field attorneys are involved in the 

process

Repairing Neighborhoods with Partnerships (Joliet Police Department 2000)Place: City of Joliet, Illinois

Licensing and abatement used to improve rental property management and maintenance; Eviction used 

•	Neighborhoods with nuisance and drug and 

weapons problems were identified.

•	Police tried to win cooperation of landlords. Few 

landlords cooperated.

•	Police found that other city departments were also 

frustrated in their efforts.

•	Police developed a formal abatement process 

for dealing with drug, weapon, and nuisance complaints.

•	Police learned of a city rental inspection ordinance 

that required property owners of two or more rental units to pass a maintenance inspection and to maintain a rental inspection certificate for each property. Certificate had to be renewed every two years.

•	At police request, city council passed an ordinance 

requiring landlords to cooperate with police once they were notified that their property was involved in criminal activity. 

•	If landlords failed to cooperate, they could be 

forced to vacate their property. 

•	After some success in closing problem 

property and in gaining the cooperation of landlords, residents became more comfortable cooperating with police, even in gang neighborhoods.

•	Number of calls for service was reduced 

(between 31 and 62 percent in abatement properties) and the neighborhood quality of life increased.

•	If representatives of neighborhood services 

(community) and of fire, zoning, and legal departments all participate 

•	If police teach landlords to identify problem 

tenants, to screen prospective tenants, to enforce illegal drug clauses in leases, and to evict problem tenants

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 50 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

The Oakland Airport Motel Program (Oakland Police Department, Beat Health Unit 2003)Place: Oakland, California

Drug Nuisance Abatement, as provided by Section 11570 of the California Health and Safety Code

•	Recurring nuisance and criminal activity, including 

drug activity, was identified at a major motel, which was part of an international chain. 

•	Police undertook data checks, site visits, 

interviews, undercover surveillance, and comparisons of management practices to other nearby motels.

•	Police concluded that it was poor management 

practices at the motel that allowed crime and nuisances to flourish at this motel.

•	Meetings with on-site motel managers 

and corporate executives failed to result in improvements at the motel.

•	Police and city attorneys filed a drug nuisance 

abatement lawsuit against the parent corporation.

•	The police notified the chief financial officer of the 

bank that held the financial note on the motel.

•	Police engaged in negotiations with the parent 

corporation.

•	Parent corporation agreed to improve its 

management practices and to post a $250,000 performance bond covering a two-year monitoring period to guarantee reductions in crime and nuisance at the motel.

•	Parent corporation agreed to pay the City of 

Oakland about $35,000 to cover the costs of its investigation.

•	Numerous specific improvements were made 

to the physical environment and management practices at the motel. 

•	Two years after the agreement there were few 

calls for police service at the motel and the property had been returned to productive use.

•	If police gather irrefutable evidence—

particularly when dealing with corporations

•	If there is a systematic deliberate approach 

to building a case against a problem property through careful documentation by police and city attorneys

•	If there is cooperation among the city, 

county, and non-governmental agencies and the police do not dictate specific actions 

•	If partners can hold the motel accountable 

for operating a business without excessive nuisance and crime complaints, this may prevent the motel management from minimally implementing recommendations and then claiming them to be ineffective

Auburn Boulevard Revitalization Project(Catron and Wassmer 2005)Place: Public Housing in Citrus Heights, California 

Nuisance law •	Revitalization effort was undertaken.

•	Purpose-formed nuisance response team 

comprised police and other public agencies.

•	Eviction was one of a range of possible responses.

•	Crime rates were significantly reduced (by 

32%).

•	Robberies decreased (by 95%).•	Crime increases were found in comparison 

areas.

•	Commercial activity in areas surrounding the 

revitalization project increased.

•	When traditional enforcement strategies are 

employed in combination with alternative strategies

•	At highly visible business premises, 

owners may have the most to lose by not cooperating

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 51 |

Appendixes 

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Neighbors Against Drugs (NAD) (Sheboygan Police Department 2005)Place: Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Notice of potential use of abatement and eviction

•	Following unprecedented increases in illicit drug 

dealing including introduction of crack, Drug Unit and Community Policing Unit met and established that problems in many of the drug houses could not be adequately addressed due to the tedious process of traditional law enforcement investigations and gathering evidence. 

•	Police officer worked with community volunteers, 

local politicians, and business leaders to develop a plan. 

•	Neighborhood residents became directly involved 

in identifying drug activity and filled out diaries documenting this activity.

•	Volunteers administered door-to-door pre-test 

survey to gather data on fear of crime and bystander effects and corroborated the evidence.

•	Once drug activity was verified, Neighbors Against 

Drugs (NAD) logos were posted at all houses except those suspected of being drug houses.

•	Educational meetings were held with property 

owners about civil abatement procedures and the eviction of problem tenants.

•	Media were used to explain NAD.•	Victory parties were held after drug dealers were 

evicted, moved out, or stopped dealing.

•	Post-test surveys of affected neighborhoods were 

carried out.

•	“Victory” claimed in 18 neighborhoods with 59 

drug houses eliminated.

•	Surveys indicated that: (1) people felt safer; (2) 

there were fewer suspected drug houses; (3) residents reported greater willingness to call the police.

•	If a strong partnership is formed with 

community, including having a formalized mission statement and goals set through group consensus

•	If goals are pragmatic and achievable

Eviction

Operation Safe Homes Drug Elimination Program (DEP)(Fagan et al. 2006)Place: Public Housing inNew York, New York

Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

•	Beefing up police presence. •	Instituting volunteer tenant patrols.•	Forming an anti-narcotics “strike force,” composed 

of attorneys, investigators, and other city staff who focused on the eviction of drug dealers.

•	Setting up a drug abuse treatment and prevention 

program.

•	No effect shown in the public housing.•	Crime and drug problem reduction in the 

immediate neighborhood and in surrounding precincts.

•	If the funds do not merely supplement 

ongoing policing programs, as some claimed occurred here

•	If there are incentives for citizen cooperation•	If funds go toward drug-demand reduction 

and informal social control programs

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 52 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (DEP) (Barbrey 2004)Place: Public Housing in Knoxville, Tennessee

Federal AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988

•	One-strike eviction policy.•	Neighborhood watch.•	24-hour security patrols.•	Training and awareness programs.•	Improved tenant screening.•	Grants for the demolition and rebuilding of poorly 

designed properties. 

•	Did not appear to reduce crime rates.

Trespass

Uptown Men’s Shelter(CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department 2000)Place: David Three District, North Carolina

Some use of civil trespass

•	Men’s shelter identified as generating increased 

calls for service, including drugs-related issues.

•	Local business linked criminal activity and loss of 

patronage with the homeless population. Police found many of the homeless in the neighborhood were not associated with the shelter. Suspects were listing the shelter as their home address because it gave them easier access to services even though they did not live there.

•	Police surveyed 911 calls from the shelter and 

established that most were not appropriate use of 911, but resulted from poorly trained managers at the shelter using the police as “surrogate shelter managers.” Police found other evidence of problems with management at the shelter.

•	Police trained staff and management.•	Shelter managers adopted a written policy, 

consistently applied across all shifts that articulated the grounds for banning people from the shelter.

•	Police expanded their authority in the area by 

adopting agreements with several businesses and local railways. The agreements, known as Authorization to Act as Agent, empowered police to enforce the law on private property in the absence of the owner or manager.

•	Officers set up a method for shelter residents to 

pass information to police about criminal activity without fear of being identified by offenders. The program was another way that officers hoped to gain the trust of a population that traditionally has had an uneasy relationship with police.

•	The most obvious measure of success was the 

reduction in 911 calls-for-service to the shelter.

•	Members of Business Coalition and residents of 

the area said they believed that improvements in management procedures and in the physical environment had gone a long way to reduce many of the problems—loitering, assaults, drug dealing—associated with the shelter.

•	Residents and business owners alike changed 

their perception of the shelter, believing that the shelter wanted to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

•	If police encourage the property managers 

to become part of the solution by careful analysis and training to improve their capacity as place managers

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t)
| 53 |

Appendixes 

Table C1. Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Drug Crime in Public and Private Housing (con’t) Program and Place Statute/ Code Used Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions Outcomes Works Best ... Condemnation, Boarding Up, Demolition The Snake Pit (Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department 1994) Place: Carmichael, Sacramento County, California Zoning enforcement, Vehicle abatement, Code enforcement •	Ongoing monitoring by four-person POP team of problem property owned by elderly gentleman. •	Over time, record checks were run and occupants were arrested on warrants (drugs and other charges). •	Enforcement had been ongoing and reactive and did not solve the problem. •	Multi-agency response included: Police, Vehicle Abatement, County Counsel, County Building Inspectors, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District Field Supervisor, Planning Department; Zoning Enforcement County Code, Sacramento Sheriff’s Work Project supervisor and crew, Sacramento County Waste Disposal, and Hazardous Materials Supervisor. Preparation phase: •	Posted notices of substandard living conditions on property •	Residents were given one week to leave or be evicted •	Vehicles were tagged and notices placed on them of expired registrations and repairs required Clean-up: •	Squatters and criminals were evicted •	Vehicles were towed •	Electrical meters and wiring were removed •	94,000 pounds of garbage were removed •	Most illegal occupants left of their own accord; others left after some pressure was applied. •	Elderly owner who thought the squatters and criminals were her friends (and there to help) agreed to enter a convalescent hospital and subsequently moved in with her son and was last known to be in good health. •	Notice was posted on property that it was unsafe to occupy. It was fenced and later sold. Plan was to raze the buildings. •	Publicity of the POP multi-agency response generated through TV coverage of the clean-up. •	When there is a staged response with eviction notice and vehicle warnings being issued in advance •	When there is sensitivity to the situation of the owner that helps ensure owner’s safety •	If there is a multi-agency response, then all agencies with a role to play are involved in the planning, preparation, and the clean-up Public Nuisance Taskforce (Williams n.d.) Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Controlled Substances Act, the Liquor Act, and other laws •	Citizen complaints were lodged using a formal incident report and affidavit. •	Prosecutors could send the information to the police and other agencies for further investigation. •	Notice letters were sent to owners that allowed for property to be seized, shut down, or forfeited due to their association with drugs, weapons, gangs, or anti-social or violent behavior. •	More than 2,000 nuisance properties were closed through administrative orders, civil injunction, property forfeiture, habitability condemnation, or negotiation.
| 54 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Appendix D: Applying Property-Related Civil 

Remedies to Alcohol-Related Disorder†

This section discusses the use of property-related civil remedies to address alcohol-related crime 

and disorder. These types of remedies have been used by police and others to address crime and 

disorder in individual licensed establishments (bars, pubs, and clubs), as well as in larger areas, 

such as the concentrated entertainment districts found in resorts or in revitalized city centers. 

Establishments that sell alcohol have long been subject to legal controls, from zoning laws 

prohibiting their operations in certain areas to regulatory codes limiting their hours of operation, 

number of patrons, types of beverages, and serving standards.

† For more information on this crime problem, see Problem-Specific Guide No. 1, Assaults in and Around Bars.
| 55 

|

Appendixes 

Table D1: Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder

Program and Place

Statute/Code Used

Specific Problems andResponses/Interventions

Outcomes Works Best ...

Licensing Code Enforcement

Surfers Paradise Safety Action Project(Homel et al. 1997)Place: Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia

Queensland Liquor Act 1992

•	A community forum with community-based task 

groups and a safety audit was formed.

•	Risk assessments and model house policies 

leading to a code of practice for nightclub managers were done.

•	External regulation conducted by police and liquor 

licensing inspectors, with emphasis on prohibiting the service of intoxicated patrons.

•	Significant differences in the observational 

reporting measures were found for many of the recommended changes to the physical and social environments, security and serving practices, and alcohol consumption.

•	Violence and crime (inside and outside venues) 

decreased following implementation of the code of practice.

•	Some displacement of offending patrons may 

have occurred.

•	Later observational data show changes were 

not sustained.

•	If enforcement of the licensing regulations 

are seen, by those operating the clubs, as being maintained routinely by regulators

The Geelong Accord(Felson et al. 1997)Place: Geelong, Victoria, Australia

No specific code provision was highlighted

•	Measures to control pub hopping in the central 

business district (which was associated with heavy drinking and violence) were agreed, as The Accord, among police, licensing officials, and venue operators. 

•	Late-night measures included: limiting reentry, 

elimination of promotional drinks, and imposition of cover charges.

•	Recommended stricter ID requirements to address 

underage entry and drinking.

•	“Soft” data showed less crime reported and 

less obvious drunkenness.

•	“Hard” data showed that crime for whole 

city, including serious assaults, declined, but no police data for targeted CBD itself were available.

•	If both “carrots” and “sticks” are available •	“Carrots” are increased revenues for venue 

owners and less risk of violence

•	“Sticks” are possibility of less favorable 

treatment by regulators and police in the future if Accord not followed

Replication of the Surfers Paradise Action Project(Hauritz et al. 1998)Places: Three cities in northern Queensland, Australia (Cairns, Townsville, and Mackay)

Security Providers Act and Liquor Act (passed in 1992 to replace one passed in 1912)

•	Training of staff on patron care (responsible 

alcohol service and patron safety) was carried out.

•	Enforcers were trained about the provisions of the 

licensing legislation.

•	Security personnel were trained about crowd 

control.

•	Unobtrusive direct observations inside venues 

by patron-observers of aggression, drinking, and server practices showed:

(1) All forms of aggression and violence 

declined, except verbal aggression in one city;

(2) Improvements in most of the indicators of 

host responsibility in serving practices; 

(3) Percentage of visits with high levels of 

male drunkenness declined

•	Where other methods, such as civil liability 

suits, are seldom used and licensing law enforcement was not routinely carried out previously (as in Australia)

•	If responsible beverage services are strongly 

implemented since these affect the level of male drunkenness and resulting violence

•	If informal persuasion and the potential use 

of formal enforcement are both present and formal enforcement is seen by operators as being a realistic possibility
| 56 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Table D1: Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder (con’t) Program and Place Statute/ Code Used Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions Outcomes Works Best ... NRG (Energy) Nightclub (Halton Regional Police Service 2002) Place: Burlington, Ontario, Canada Provincial licensing regulations, by-laws, and fire codes •	Extensive parking controls were set up on site and in the surrounding business areas and neighborhood (through new by-laws). •	Entry control—ID checks and metal detectors— were used. •	Rapid response to on-site disorder instituted. •	Training about signs of drug use and intoxication was given to staff. •	Police were established as agents to control loitering at adjacent businesses. •	Area patrols carried out by “Old Clothes Team.” •	Decline in overall levels of crime were reported, as well as in assaults, car crime, and mischief. •	Levels of enforcement for drugs, liquor violations, and trespass increased. •	Checks by police, fire, and alcohol and gaming inspectors after measures instituted revealed no violations at this club. •	If the responses to the crime and disorder problems include the venue and the surrounding area Tackling Alcohol- Related Street Crime (TASC) Project (Maguire and Nettleton 2003) Place: Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom (City Center and Cardiff Bay) Licensing laws •	Enforcement of requirement that bar staff be registered and trained. •	Policing and inspections were targeted at “hot spots” of violence. •	Advertising campaigns were used. •	School visits were carried out. •	Offender program was set up. •	Despite an overall increase in the number of venues post-start-up, a comparison of pre- and post- project periods for the targeted areas showed a 4% decline in the incidence of alcohol-related assaults. •	A 49% increase in the incidents of alcohol- related disorder, although the rate of increase declined during the initiative. •	If senior management in brewing and leisure companies are willing to engage in long- range cooperative planning in relation to crime and disorder problems (which was not completely realized in this project, probably due to competitive pressures for customers) •	If bar staff registration and discipline proceedings operate more effectively •	If pub density is lower in a key area, with TASC/Police input at the planning stage of new applications
| 57 |

Appendixes 

Table D1: Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder (con’t) Program and Place Statute/ Code Used Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions Outcomes Works Best ... Underage drinking (Plano Police Department 2003) Place: City of Plano, Texas Liquor licensing enforcement •	A large number of stores were selling alcohol to minors. Police identified that neither the minors nor the store clerks had any fear of getting caught breaking the law. •	Police implemented special enforcement details to increase enforcement, obtain specific data on which stores were selling alcohol to minors. •	Police used both prosecution and education of violators. •	Police utilized confidential informants under the age of 18 to purchase alcohol under very controlled circumstances. Police immediately advised the clerk of the action to be taken against them. •	In each case a report was presented to a municipal judge to obtain an arrest warrant for the clerk. •	Police phoned the clerks and gave them the option of turning themselves in or be arrested at large. •	A copy of the paperwork was sent to Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) for subsequent administrative investigation. •	Police identified four main reasons that store clerks sold alcohol to minors. •	Police utilized this information to educate the community and violators about the problem. •	Police officer trained other officers on how to detect and enforce TABC laws more effectively. •	The number of stores selling alcohol to minors significantly decreased. •	There was an estimated decrease in sales of alcohol to minors of 75%. •	Community awareness of the problem of underage sales of alcohol was raised. •	If police utilize as many resources as possible to work on the problem, including the TABC store clerks, storeowners, and the media •	If police reach out to the community to help increase their knowledge about Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission violations •	If regular patrol officers are involved in the process to encourage officers to conduct stricter enforcement on alcohol violations.
| 58 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Table D1: Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder (con’t) Program and Place Statute/ Code Used Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions Outcomes Works Best ... The Boogie! (Anaheim Police Department 2007) Place: Anaheim, California Potential revocation of license •	Previous police responses to crime and violence at location over many years provided only short- term relief. •	A District Policing Team was established. •	Two areas of responsibility were identified: (1) inside the club (Vice Detail) and (2) problems outside the club (District Community Policing Team). •	The Community Policing Team brought together stakeholders: nightclub proprietor, Code Enforcement, and Traffic Bureau. Proprietor agreed to minor changes. •	Despite ongoing engagement with nightclub, police training of personnel, increased enforcement, and increased security arrangements made by club management it became clear that even if the club operated in full compliance with all state and local codes, the potential for crime and violence to occur remained. •	Special unit took full responsibility for all criminal cases—not distributed across specialized units. •	This change revealed the club’s bouncers were actually suspects in 40% of all crimes reported at the club. •	Behind-the-scenes investigation of primarily public records found that some club operators and principals had extensive criminal records, were involved in civil litigation, or in bankruptcy proceedings. •	Notice of potential revocation of club’s license was given. •	The proprietor quickly negotiated the surrender of his city business license and dance-hall permit, and agreed to sell his liquor license in lieu of the pending revocation. •	The effective date of termination of these licenses coincided with the expiration of licensee’s liability insurance. •	The club closed that month, with the property owner seeking a developer to build a large hotel. •	If all cases associated with the establishment are channeled through one unit, then there will be clearer, quicker analysis of trends with stronger advocacy for presenting cases for prosecution
| 59 |

Appendixes 

Table D1: Summary of Programs and Initiatives Using Civil Remedies in Response to Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder (con’t) Program and Place Statute/ Code Used Specific Problems and Responses/Interventions Outcomes Works Best ... Operation Safe Clubs (Miami Police Department 2011) Place: Miami, Florida Licensing and fire and safety municipal code provisions Following a change in zoning restrictions for five areas of the city, two developed alcohol-related problems, including excessive noise and crimes. Part 1: POP analysis lead to the following: •	Increased direct enforcement efforts •	Clarification of code provisions •	Lobbying to eliminate conflicting provisions, and pass-needed provisions •	Establishment of inspection protocols for the alcohol venues to follow •	Timely and consistent inspections •	Coordinated operations across agencies •	Serious violations leading to immediate closures Part 2: Analysis lead to the establishment of the following: •	The Enhanced Police Services (EPA) to set up special response services as problems were developing •	Sound Attenuation Program—including sound assessments during hours of operation Part 1 outcomes: •	Police reported 100% compliance with codes achieved by venues in areas. •	Reductions in violent crimes in areas were reported. •	Complaints from area residents about noise disturbances continued. Part 2 outcomes: •	Modest declines in night-time-related crimes were found. •	Increase in arrests—possibly due to early reporting of incidents. •	Sound complaints went down. •	If there is a rapid response to complaints, which can lead to an amelioration of the problems at each location •	If a high level of cooperation across the operators of the venues in the area is developed over time
| 60 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Endnotes

1. Cheh (1991).

2. See, e.g., Hutter (2006).

3. See, e.g., Kelo v. New London (2005).

4. See, e.g., Bellamy (1996) (convenience store restrictions) and Douglas (1998) and Gray 

et al. (2000), (restrictions on alcohol sales).

5. Buerger and Mazerolle (1998).

6. Mazerolle and Ransley (2006).

7. Mazerolle and Ransley (2006).

8. See, e.g., Pinkerton (2012).

9. See, e.g., Anaheim Police Department (2007).

10. Hauritz et al. (1998) 525.

11. Graham and Homel (2008).

12. See, e.g., Felson et al. (1997).

13. See, e.g., Hawks et al. (1999).

14. Graham and Homel (2008).

15. Halton Regional Police Service (2002).

16. See, e.g., the online resources provided by the New York City Department of Planning 

at www.nyc.gov/html/dop/html/subcats/zoning.shtml. 

17. Ashe et al. (2003).

18. National Crime Prevention Council (1996).

19. Ashe et al. (2003).

20. Holder et al. (2000) 2341.

21. See www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Page48.aspx.

22. See www.scottsdaleaz.gov/codes/bars.

23. Miami Police Department (2011).

24. See Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft (1993).

25. Davis and Lurigio (1998).
| 61 |

Endnotes

26. Davis and Lurigio (1998), citing Smith et al. (1992).

27. Sampson and Scott (1999).

28. Davis and Lurigio (1996).

29. Davis and Lurigio (1998), citing Smith et al., (1992) and Lurigio et al. (1995).

30. Davis and Lurigio (1996). See also Campbell (2001) for a list of nuisance abatement 

laws that address other types of crime and disorder problems as well.

31. Cristall and Forman-Echols (2009).

32. Sampson and Scott (1999).

33. Davis and Lurigio (1998).

34. Ferguson and Fitzsimons (1990).

35. Davis and Lurigio (1998).

36. See, e.g., www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/civil/unlawful_detainer.php.

37. Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft (1993). 

38. Great Britain, Department for Communities and Local Government (2010).

39. Fagan et al. (2006).

40. See Fagan et al. (2006).

41. Barbrey (2004).

42. See, e.g., Sampson and Scott (1999).

43. Finn (1995).

44. Viscia (2009).

45. Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft (1993) 18.

46. National Crime Prevention Council (1996).

47. National Crime Prevention Council (1996).

48. National Crime Prevention Council (1996).

49. National Crime Prevention Council (1996).

50. See http://manhattanda.org/trespass-affidavit-program. 
| 62 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

51. See, e.g., Ligon v. City of New York (2013), which challenged the legal basis being used 

in practice by the police for stops outside of TAP buildings in the Bronx, New York. 

This case did not reach the merits of the claim, but did grant a preliminary injunction 

against police making stops outside buildings in the Bronx, New York, without 

reasonable suspicion of trespass. This case is one of several cases challenging stop-andfrisk policies by the New York City Police Department, an issue beyond the scope of 

this guide.

52. Arlington Police Department (2008) 7.

53. Scott and Dedel (2006).

54. Davis and Lurigio (1998).

55. Spelman (1993). 

56. See Popkin et al. (1999).

57. Joliet Police Department (1996).

58. Joliet Police Department (2000).

59. Spelman (1993).

60. But see, Eck (1997).

61. See Putnam et al. (1993) and Halton Regional Police Service (2002).

62. Halton Regional Police Service (2002).

63. Sheboygan Police Department (2005).

64. Finn and Hylton (1994).

65. Goldkamp et al. (2003).

66. See, e.g., Maricopa County Attorney (n.d.).

67. Holmes (2012).

68. Fanflick et al. (2007).

69. Phoenix Police Department (1998).

70. Indio Police Department (2009).

71. Davis and Lurigio (1998).

72. See Indio Police Department (2009).

73. Popkin et al. (1999).
| 63 |

Endnotes

74. Maricopa County Attorney (n.d.).

75. Green (1996).

76. Jacobs et al. (2007), citing Hunsley (2003).

77. Ross (1995); see also Betts (2001) for documentation of the bottleneck process in 

rehabilitation and demolition cases.

78. See discussion in Davis and Lurigio (1998).

79. Phoenix Police Department (1998).

80. Reno et al. (2000).

81. See, e.g., Cornish (1994).

82. Spelman (1993).

83. See, e.g., Cornish (1994).

84. See Felson (2008).

85. Smith (forthcoming; 1998).

86. See, e.g., Mazerolle and Ransley (2006).

87. See, e.g., Fagan et al. (2006) (in the U.S. context) and Forrest et al. (2005) (in the 

England context). 
| 64 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

References

Anaheim Police Department. 2007. “The Boogie: When Jack Met SARA.” Submission for 

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Arlington (Texas) Police Department. 2008. “Cowboys: A Problem Solving Initiative.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing.

Ashe, M., D. Jernigan, R. Kline, and R. Galaz. 2003. “Land Use Planning and the Control 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food Restaurants.” American Journal of Public 

Health 93(9): 1404–1408.

Barbrey, J.W. 2004. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Crime Control Policies in Knoxville’s 

Public Housing: Using Mapping Software to Filter Part 1 Crime Data.” Journal of 

Contemporary Criminal Justice 20:3–32.

Bellamy, Lisa C. 1996. “Situational Crime Prevention and Convenience Store Robbery.” 

Security Journal 7(1): 41–52.

Betts, P. 2001. Best Practice Number Ten: Fixing Broken Windows—Strategies to Strengthen 

Housing Code Enforcement and Related Approaches to Community-Based Crime 

Prevention in Memphis. Memphis, TN: Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. 

Buerger, Michael, and Lorraine Mazerolle. 1998. “Third-Party Policing: A Theoretical 

Analysis of an Emerging Trend.” Justice Quarterly 15(2): 301–328.

Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft. 1993. A Civil War: A Community Legal Guide to 

Fighting Street Drug Markets. New York: Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft.

Campbell, J.H. 2001. Solving Chronic Nuisance Problems: A Guide for Neighborhood 

Leaders. Columbia, MD: The Enterprise Foundation. 

Catron, S., and R. Wassmer. 2005. A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Auburn Boulevard 

Revitalization Project. New York: Local Initiatives Support Corporation.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2000. “Uptown Men’s Shelter.” Submission for 

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing.

Cheh, Mary M. 1991. “Constitutional Limits on Using Civil Remedies to Achieve 

Criminal Law Objectives: Understanding and Transcending the Criminal-Civil Law 

Distinction.” Hastings Law Journal 42(5): 1325–1413.

Chula Vista Police Department. 2009. “Reducing Crime and Disorder at Motels in Chula 

Vista, California.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. 
| 65 |

References

Clarke, Ronald V., and John E. Eck. 2005. Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small 

Steps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing 

Service.

Cornish, Derek B. 1994. “The Procedural Analysis of Offending and Its Relevance for 

Situational Prevention.” Vol. 3 of Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Cristall, J., and L. Forman-Echols. 2009. Property Abatements—The Other Gang 

Injunction. Project T.O.U.G.H. National Gang Center Bulletin, No. 2. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Davis, R., and Arthur Lurigio. 1996. Fighting Back: Neighborhood Anti-Drug Strategies. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, R., and Arthur Lurigio. 1998. “Civil Abatement as a Tool for Controlling Drug 

Dealing in Rental Properties.” Security Journal 11(1): 45–50.

Douglas, M. 1998. “Restriction of the Hours of the Sale of Alcohol in a Small 

Community: A Beneficial Impact.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public 

Health 22(6): 714–719.

Eck, John E. 1997. “Do Premises Liability Suits Promote Business Crime Prevention?” In 

Business and Crime Prevention, ed. Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press.

Eck, John E. 1998. “Preventing Crime by Controlling Drug Dealing on Private Rental 

Property.” Security Journal 11(1): 37–43.

Eck, John E., and William Spelman. 1987. Problem Solving: Problem Oriented Policing in 

Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Fagan, Jeffrey, Garth Davies, and J. Holland. 2006. “The Paradox of the Drug 

Elimination Program in New York City Public Housing.” Georgetown Journal on 

Poverty Law & Policy 13(3): 415–460.

Fanflick, Patricia L., Lisa M. Budzilowicz, and M. Elaine Nugent-Borakove. 2007. 

Managing Innovation: A Closer Look at Community Prosecution Management Issues.

Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Agency. 

Felson, Marcus. 2008. “Routine Activity Approach.” In Environmental Criminology and 

Crime Analysis ed. Richard Wortley and Lorraine Mazerolle. Cullompton, Devon, 

U.K.: Willan.
| 66 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Felson, Marcus, Robyn Berends, Barry Richardson, and Arthur Veno. 1997. “Reducing 

Pub Hopping and Related Crime.” In Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public 

Intoxication and Injury, ed. Ross Homel.Vol. 7 of Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, 

NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Ferguson, H. and P.S. Fitzsimons. 1990. “Drug Abatements: An Attractive Tool in the War 

on Narcotics.” The Police Chief (57): 46–49.

Finn, Peter. 1995. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Narcotics Eviction Program.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Finn, Peter, and Maria O’Brien Hylton. 1994. Using Civil Remedies for Criminal Behavior: 

Rationale, Case Studies, and Constitutional Issues. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Forrest, S., A. Myhill, and Nick Tilley. 2005. Practical Lessons for Involving the Community 

in Crime and Disorder Problem-Solving. Development and Practice Report 43. 

London: Home Office.

Goldkamp, John S., Cheryl Irons-Guynn, and Doris Weiland. 2003. “Community 

Prosecution Strategies: Monograph.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Graham, Katherine, and Ross Homel. 2008. Raising the Bar: Preventing Aggression in and 

Around Bars, Pubs and Clubs. Cullompton, Devon, U.K.: Willan.

Gray, D., S. Saggers, D. Atkinson, B. Sputore, and D. Bourbon. 2000. “Beating the Grog: 

An Evaluation of the Tennant Creek Liquor Licensing Restrictions.” Australian and 

New Zealand Journal of Public Health 24(1): 39–44. 

Great Britain, Department for Communities and Local Government. 2010. Tackling 

Anti-Social Behaviour: Tools and Powers—Toolkit for Social Landlords. London: 

Communities and Local Government.

Green, Lorraine. 1996. Policing Places with Drug Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Green Bay Police Department. 1999. “Street Sweeping, Broadway Style: Revitalizing a 

Business District from the Inside Out.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Halton (Ontario) Regional Police Service. 2002. “Let’s Dance: A Community’s 

Collaborative Response to the Problems Created by an All Ages Nightclub.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing.
| 67 |

References

Hauritz, Marg, Ross Homel, Gillian McIlwain, T. Burrows, and Michael Townsley. 1998. 

“Reducing Violence in Licensed Venues Through Community Safety Action Projects: 

The Queensland Experience.” Contemporary Drug Problems 25:511–551.

Hawks D., R. Rydon, T. Stockwell, M. White, T. Chikritzhs, and R. Heale. 1999. The 

Evaluation of the Freemantle Police-Licensee Accord: Impact on Serving Practices, Harm 

and the Wider Community. Perth, Australia: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin 

University of Technology.

Hayden, J. 2007. Community Prosecution Techniques to Reduce Drug-Related Gang Activity. 

Special Topics Series. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Higgins, D., and James Coldren. 2000. Evaluating Gang and Drug House Abatement in 

Chicago. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Holder, H.D., P.J. Gruenewald, W.R. Ponicki, A.J. Treno, J.W. Grube, R.F. Saltz, R.B. 

Voas, R. Reynalds, J. Davis, L. Sanchez, G. Gaumont, and P. Roeper. 2000. “Effect 

of Community-Based Interventions on High-Risk Drinking and Alcohol-Related 

Injuries.” The Journal of the American Medical Association 284(18): 2341–2347.

Holmes, P.S. 2012. E-Newsletter: “Assistant City Attorneys Will Work out of SPD 

Precincts.” Seattle, WA: Seattle City Attorney’s Office.

Homel, Ross, Marg Hauritz, Richard Wortley, Gillian McIlwain, and Russel Carvolth. 

1997. “Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Through Community Action: The Surfers 

Paradise Safety Action Project.” In Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public 

Intoxication and Injury, ed. R. Homel.Vol. 7 of Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press.

Hutter, B. 2006. The Role of Non-State Actors in Regulation. Discussion Paper No. 37. 

London: Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics 

and Political Science.

Indio (California) Police Department. 2009. “Indio Foreclosed Property Registration and 

Mitigation Program.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem Oriented Policing.

Jacobs, K., T. Burke, M. Green, S. Saggers, R. Mason, and A. Barclay. 2007. Making Sense 

of Partnerships: A Study of Police and Housing Department Collaboration for Tackling 

Drug and Related Problems on Public Housing Estates. Monograph Series No. 26: 

Hobart, Tasmania: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund.

Joliet Police Department. 1996. “Court Center Project.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
| 68 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Joliet Police Department. 2000. “Licensing Rental Property in Joliet: Repairing 

Neighborhoods with Partnerships.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Kansas City Police Department. 1995. “6100 Block of Charlotte Avenue Project: 

Eliminating Drug and Prostitution Houses from a Family Neighborhood.” Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Macintyre, S. and Ross Homel. 1997. “Danger on the Dance Floor: A Study of Interior 

Design, Crowding and Aggression in Nightclubs.” In Policing for Prevention: Reducing 

Crime, Public Intoxication and Injury, ed. R. Homel. Vol 7 of Crime Prevention Studies. 

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Maguire, Mike and H. Nettleton. 2003. Reducing Alcohol-related Violence and Disorder: An 

Evaluation of the ‘TASC’ Project. Home Office Research Study 265. London: Home 

Office, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Maricopa County Attorney. n.d. “Anti-Slum Packet.” Phoenix, AZ: Maricopa County 

Attorney.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, and J. Ransley. 2006. Third Party Policing. Cambridge, U.K.: 

Cambridge University Press.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, C. Kadleck, and Jan Roehl. 1998. “Controlling Drug and Disorder 

Problems: The Role of Place Managers.” Criminology 36(2): 371–404.

Miami (Florida) Police Department. 2011. “Operation Safe Clubs: Enforcement and 

Situational Problem-Oriented Policing.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

National Crime Prevention Council. 1996. New Ways of Working with Local Laws to Reduce 

Crime. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

Oakland Police Department, Beat Health Unit. 2003. “The Oakland Airport Motel 

Program: Eliminating Criminal and Nuisance Behavior at a Motel.” Submission for 

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Phoenix Police Department. 1998. “The South Mountain Precinct Nuisance Abatement 

Program.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem 

Oriented Policing.

Pinkerton, J. 2012. “Harris County Attorney’s Office has Illegal Businesses ‘On the 

Radar.’” Houston Chronicle, March 11.

Plano Police Department. 2003. “Underage Drinking: More than a Minor Issue.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing.
| 69 |

References

Popkin, S., V. Gwiasda, D. Rosenbaum, J. Amendola, W. Johnson, and L. Olsen. 1999. 

“Combating Crime in Public Housing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Longitudinal 

Analysis of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Anti-drug Initiative.” Justice Quarterly

16(3): 519–557.

Putnam, S.L., I.R.H. Rockett, and M.K. Campbell. 1993. “Methodological Issues in 

Community-Based Alcohol-Related Injury Prevention Projects: Attribution of 

Program Effects.” In Experiences with Community Action Projects: New Research 

in the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, ed. T.K. Greenfield and R. 

Zimmerman. CSAP Prevention Monograph-14. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP).

Reno, J., D. Marcus, M.L. Leary, and N.E. Gist. 2000. Keeping Illegal Activity out 

of Rental Property: A Police Guide for Establishing Landlord Training Programs.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs.

Ross, H. L. 1995. “Housing Code Enforcement as Law in Action.” Law and Policy 17(4): 

133–160.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. 1994. “The Snake Pit: Cleaning up a Problem 

Residence.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem 

Oriented Policing.

Sampson, Rana, and Michael S. Scott. 1999. “Apartment Complex and Other Rental 

Property Crime.” Tackling Crime and Other Safety Problems. Case Studies in Problem 

Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

San Diego Police Department. 2000. “The Question of Independent Living.” Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing.

Scott, Michael S. and Kelly Dedel. 2006. Assaults In and Around Bars (2nd ed.). ProblemOriented Policing Guide No. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Sheboygan Police Department. 2005. “Neighbors Against Drugs.” Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing. 

Shiner, M. 2009. Civil Gang Injunctions: A Guide for Prosecutors. Alexandria, VA: 

American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Smith, Martha J. forthcoming. “Civil Remedies.” In Encyclopedia of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, ed. D. Weisburd and G. Bruinsma. New York: Springer Verlag.
| 70 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Smith, Martha J. 1998. “Regulating Opportunities: Multiple Roles for Civil Remedies 

in Situational Crime Prevention.” In Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention, ed. L. 

Mazerolle and J. Roehl. Vol. 9 of Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Spelman, William. 1993. “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime.” Journal of Criminal 

Justice 21(5): 481–495.

Viscia, K. 2009. “Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: Report to the California Legislature 

under Health and Safety Code Section 11571.1 and Civil Code Section 3485.” San 

Francisco: Office of Court Research, Administrative Office of the Courts.

Williams, R.S. n.d. “Community Guide to Enforcing Drug and Alcohol Nuisance Laws.” 

Philadelphia, PA: Public Nuisance Task Force, District Attorney’s Office.

Cases Cited

Kelo v. New London, (2005) 545 U.S. 469.

Ligon v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2871.
| 71 |

About the Authors

About the Authors

Martha J. Smith

Martha J. Smith is an associate professor at the School of Community Affairs at Wichita 

State University. Her research interests include: crime and disorder on public and private 

transport and paratransit; situational crime prevention; and decision-making models related 

to offending, actions of potential victims, and search and seizure. She is the author of the 

POP Guide Robbery of Taxi Drivers and has co-edited Theory for Practice in Situational 

Crime Prevention and Secure and Tranquil Travel (both with Derek Cornish), and two 

volumes of Security Journal (with Bonnie Fisher). She has written and co-written articles 

and book chapters on civil remedies, situational crime prevention, anticipatory benefits, 

crime and public transport, potential victims’ decision making, vandalism decision making, 

and search and seizure. She received a bachelors degree from Brown University, a law 

degree from New York University, and a masters and doctorate in criminal justice from 

Rutgers University. She is a member of the bar of both Nebraska and New York. She 

taught previously at Cardiff University in Wales, Rutgers University, and the University of 

Nebraska at Omaha.

Lorraine Mazerolle

Lorraine Mazerolle is research professor in the Institute for Social Science Research at the 

University of Queensland and an Australian Research Council (ARC) laureate fellow. She 

is also the foundation director and a chief investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence in 

Policing and Security, a chief investigator in the Drug Policy Modeling Program, and the 

ISSR policing and security program director. Professor Mazerolle leads a team of research 

scholars with expertise in experimental criminology, urban criminological theories, survey 

methods, advanced multi-level statistics, and spatial statistics. She is the recipient of 

numerous United States and Australian national competitive research grants on topics such 

as community regulation, problem-oriented policing, police technologies, civil remedies, 

street-level drug enforcement, and policing public housing sites. Professor Mazerolle is a 

Fellow and past president of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, foundation vice 

president of the American Society of Criminology Division of Experimental Criminology, 

and author of scholarly books and articles on policing, drug law enforcement, third party 

policing, regulatory crime control, displacement of crime, and crime prevention. Professor 

Mazerolle received bachelor’s degrees from Flinders University of South Australia, and her 

master’s and doctorate in criminal justice from Rutgers University. She taught previously at 

Northeastern University, University of Cincinnati, and Griffith University.
| 72 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K. 

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting, 2nd Edition. Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-34-5

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Drug Fraud and Misuse, 2nd Edition. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La 

Vigne. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-37-6 
| 73 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. 

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto 

Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob T. Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-82-7
| 74 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

71. Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly. Brian K. Payne. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-67-3 

72. Hate Crimes. Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-78-9
| 75 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Response Guides Series

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road?

Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott 

and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

11. Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems. Martha J. Smith 

and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-81-9

Problem-Solving Tools Series 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. Scott H. Decker. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
| 76 |

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving.

Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Matthew B. 

White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

11. Analyzing and Responding to Repeat Offending. Nick Tilley. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-71-1

12. Understanding Theft of ‘Hot Products.’ Kate J. Bowers and Shane D. Johnson. 

2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-77-2

Special Publications

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, City 

Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Intelligence Analysis for Problem Solvers. John E. Eck and Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-55-3

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Robbery of Pharmacies

Problem-Solving Tools

Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Response Guides

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other 

COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems addresses the use 

of civil legal remedies—such as code enforcement, zoning, nuisance abatement, 

eviction, trespass, injunctions, condemnation, and receivership—to control and 

prevent crime and disorder occurring at real-property locations. The guide gives 

special illustrations of how civil remedies have been used to address drug- and 

alcohol-related problems linked to real property.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

ISBN:978-1-932582-81-9

September 2013 e061325584

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.