REPORT ON JOINT INTERIM STUDY CHARGE
TO THE 80TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE

COMMITTEE ON
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

&

GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS COMMITTEE

MARCH

2006

 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
TERRY KEEL
CHAIRMAN
&

HOUSE GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS COMMITTEE
KEVIN BAILEY
CHAIRMAN
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT ON JOINT INTERIM STUDY CHARGE 2006
A REPORT TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
80TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE

COMMITTEE CLERKS
DAMIAN DUARTE and RACHAEL SCHREIBER
&

ROBERTA BILSKY

 Committee On
Criminal Jurisprudence
February 28, 2006

P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Terry Keel
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Craddick
Speaker, Texas House of Representatives
Members of the Texas House of Representatives
Texas State Capitol, Rm. 2W.13
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Speaker and Fellow Members:

The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence of the Seventy-Ninth Legislature hereby submits its report on the
joint interim study charge with the General Investigating and Ethics Committee pertaining to the use of the
nuisance abatement authority by the City of Dallas for consideration by the Eightieth Legislature.

Respectfully submitted,

~£.a.u

Terry Keel

Debbie Riddle

Paul Moreno

Mary Denny

Elvira Reyna

Terri Hodge

Richard Raymond

Juan Manuel Escobar

Aaron Pena

Debbie Riddle
Vice Chair
Members: Aaron Pena CBO, Paul Moreno, Mary Denny, Elvira Reyna, Richard Raymond, Terri Hodge, Juan Manuel Escobar

 General Investigating and Ethics
Committee
February 28, 2006

Kevin Bailey
Chairman

P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

The Honorable Tom Craddick
Speaker, Texas House of Representatives
Members of the Texas House of Representatives
Texas State Capitol, Rm. 2W.13
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Speaker and Fellow Members:
The General Investigating and Ethics Committee of the Seventy-Ninth Legislature hereby submits its report on
the joint interim study charge with the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence pertaining to the use of the
nuisance abatement authority by the City of Dallas for consideration by the Eightieth Legislature.
Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Bailey
Ken Paxton

Harold Dutton

Terry Keel

Ken Paxton
Vice Chair
Members: Harold Dutton, Teny Keel, Dan Flynn

 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
&

GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS COMMITTEE
JOINT INTERIM STUDY CHARGE

Monitor the use of nuisance abatement authority by the City of Dallas and
investigate unresolved issues pertaining to allegations ofpossible civil rights
violations that may have been committed under color of law by local government.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE .................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY ..................................................................... 3
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 29
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................ 29
SUMMARY .•.•.........................................••••.............•....•....•.......••••.•.•..•......•..•.•..•..........•.........••.. 32
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 33
ADDITIONAL ORDER ................................................................................................................... 34

 BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE
The legislature has enacted and modified statutes over the years to enable local
governments to take appropriate legal action against persons and property owners who
tolerate or fail to prevent ongoing criminal activities on their property. Such criminal
activities, referred to as common or public nuisances, include, but are not limited to,
gambling, prostitution, illicit drug activity and organized crime. Common nuisances are
addressed in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code,§ 125.0015 (Chapter 125). During the
78th Regular Session, numerous changes were enacted to clarify this law and give
municipalities additional tools to combat the two problems that most plague urban
communities - drug activity and prostitution. Prior to passage of Senate Bill 1010 (78R), the
statutes only allowed proof of convictions for crimes committed on a property to constitute
prime facie evidence that a property owner had knowledge of illegal activities on the
property. Passage of that legislation added language to the code to allow, for the first time,
proof of arrests to also constitute such prime facie evidence.
Whenever authority created by the legislature is granted to local governments, it is
with the assumption that the new law will be applied within the bounds of existing law and
that sound discretion will be applied by local governments in the exercise of that power.
However, during the 79th Regular Session, the House Committee on Civil Practices heard
lengthy sworn testimony over the course of several weeks from a variety of citizens and
business owners regarding misuse of Chapter 125 by the City of Dallas.
It was revealed in testimony that the wording of the statute in effect prior to the 79th
legislative session had the unintended consequence of allowing the city to assert that anyone
who "knowingly maintained property" was strictly held liable for a crime occurring on that
property, even if they were law-abiding citizens who were taking affirmative action to protect
themselves and their property from lawbreakers. Another unintended consequence was that
arrests brought onto a property by city police were subsequently used by the city as evidence
of nuisance abatement violations against that property owner. Sworn testimony before the
house committee described specific cases of misuse of the statute by city officials such as:

•

Targeting of a few, select businesses in high-crime areas, while ignoring more serious
crimes occurring on surrounding properties;

•

Directing businesses to hire certain security personnel with the clear suggestion that
hiring these select individuals would diminish the city's threatened enforcement of
nuisance abatement;

•

Parking a large number of police cars in the parking lot of a business owner as a
retaliatory act toward that owner, who had challenged the city's nuisance action
against him and had testified in court on behalf of an individual who was acquitted of
charges for resisting arrest while on the business' property;

1

 •

Using calls to police requesting assistance by the business as marks against that
business in the city's criteria for evidence of nuisance abatement violations;

•

Directing a hotel property owner to run criminal history checks on all guests, which is
a possible violation of the guests' civil rights and could potentially subject the
business to legal liability; and

•

Sanctioning a local car wash owner because marihuana was found in the pants pocket
of a person working on the property. It was suggested by the city legal department
that the owner needed to conduct random pat-down searches of persons working on
the property on a regular basis -- an act prohibited by law even for law enforcement
officers.

The city's methods created a no-win situation for businesses. A business owner who did
not call the police for help was branded as one who tolerated nuisances. On the other hand,
calls made by a business for police assistance to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal
activities were then used as evidence against the business that crime was occurring on their
premises.
To clarify the language and prevent further misuse of the statute, the legislature enacted
House Bill 1690, which states that a person maintains a common nuisance if the person
"knowingly tolerates the activity and furthermore fails to make reasonable attempts to abate
the activity". The legislation also specified that evidence that a person "requested law
enforcement or emergency assistance with respect to an activity at the place where the
common nuisance is allegedly maintained is not admissible for the purpose of showing the
defendant tolerated the activity or failed to make reasonable attempts to abate the activity
alleged to constitute the nuisance".

It was hoped that passage of House Bill 1690 would clarify the appropriate uses of the
nuisance statute and curb the types of abuses that had been documented. In light of the
testimony elicited during committee hearings during the 79th Legislative Session, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives issued the following joint interim study charge to
the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and the House General Investigating and
Ethics Committee:

Monitor the use of nuisance abatement authority by the City of Dallas and investigate
unresolved issues pertaining to allegations ofpossible civil rights violations that may
have been committed under color of law by local government.

2

 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
October 11. 2005
Richard Clouse

Senior Vice-President of Budget Suites of
America. His company has been very
cooperative with law enforcement in
fighting crime on their property. He relayed
a conversation that occurred between the
SAFE Team and Budget Suites in an
Accord Meeting on November 7, 2005 at
which Budget Suites representatives were
told that law enforcement was not to be
contacted unless it was a life or death
situation. As a result they cannot work with
the Dallas Police Department (DPD) due to
fear that it will be used against them.

-

Their only recourse is to evict persons from
the hotel rather than have them arrested,
which compounds the problem. He believes
complying with the City's requirements do
more harm than good. The police
department conducted undercover
operations designed to create crime on the
property. While the City alleges that six
undercover drug buys were made on the
property, Budget Suites was not contacted
about these incidents until September with
information about the drug buys. Five of
the six buys were represented with no
information to support what occurred on
the property; there are no room numbers,
names, or dates. Another incident refers to
Room 1096, which was the subject of a
smoke alarm inspection the day before the
arrest and was found to have no criminal
activity.
In September 2005, Budget Suites met with
Deputy Chief Julian Bernal and four city
attorneys and they confirmed the placement
of undercover officers on the property and
confirmed that incidents may be developed
off property but brought onto the property

3

 and that Budget Suites would still be
responsible for the activity. This is bad
faith and deprivation of due process rights
and possibly fraud.
He expressed concern for the safety of his
employees and clients when officers are
bringing crime to the property. Budget
Suites has never been involved in a
litigation where the opposing party is free
to continually take steps to undermine their
business. He believes the company has
enough evidence to pursue this through the
civil process.
At a September meeting with Chief Bernal
Mr. Clouse asked the chief what more
could be done to prevent further problems.
The chief could not think of anything. Mr.
Clouse stated his belief that it was the
SAFE Team and their supervisors who
encourage criminal activity on the property.
Mr. Clouse indicated that the situations
whereby police officers bring criminal
activity back to the property was occurring
after HB 1690 was enacted.
Police posing as prostitutes will typically
rent a room at the hotel and bring persons
attempting to hire them back to the
property and the activity is used against the
property in the nuisance suit. There are
about ten instances where police have
brought crime onto the property and have
attributed the crime to the business.
Chief David Kunkle

Dallas Police Department Chief of Police.
The SAFE Team is a unit within DPD,
members of which are selected through an
application and interview process. The
SAFE Team was created to deal with
public nuisances utilizing an integrated unit
involving police, code enforcement, fire
department, and city attorneys. The SAFE
Team cases typically operate with a

4

 detective, code enforcement officer and a
fire inspector. During the Accord Meetings,
a supervisor is also involved. SAFE cases
typically derive from the police
department's own data, referrals from
various units of the police, or community
referrals.
The comments heard from Mr. Clouse are
contrary to what he heard from a vice
president of Budget Suites with whom he
met after the legislative hearings in Austin.
In that discussion, the vice president
acknowledged having problems with
security and bad management and had
promised to work cooperatively with the
police department. Chief Kunkle recently
recommended reducing the SAFE Team
unit from fifteen officers, three sergeants
and one lieutenant to seven officers and a
single sergeant because he believed that
since so many people were working the
SAFE Team, they could be reaching for
cases that may not have been the most
appropriate candidates. This
recommendation was implemented on
October 1, 2005.
The SAFE Team has been operating since
1991 and there are also many success
stories involving the SAFE Team. The
success of SAFE teams is measured by the
reduction of abatable crimes. DPD simply
wants Budget Suites to have good and
reasonable business practices and he
believes that there have been difficulties in
communicating this message.
DPD prohibits the SAFE Team from
encouraging businesses to hire off-duty
officers. With regard to the situation
discussed earlier that occurred in 2001, he
believes the officer made a joking comment
which was not to be taken seriously.

5

 Chief Kunkle indicated that the SAFE
Team began in 1991 at the height of the
crack epidemic when Dallas had 500
murders that year. Lieutenants of the SAFE
Team are picked by chieflevel officers. No
SAFE Team operations occur unless the
property at issue has had three abatable
crimes within one year.
Most nuisance cases were focused on drug
houses, places of prostitution, and sexually
oriented businesses. Rep. Hodge expressed
her belief that the SAFE teams do not focus
adequately on drug houses. She also said
that none of the drug houses in her district
were effectively targeted by SAFE teams,
which were instead focusing on businesses.
In response, Chief Kunkle indicated that
what the committee is hearing about today
is a very small percentage of cases
involving the SAFE Team. Not all of the
cases involve businesses. In residential
properties, owners can just evict problem
tenants. Such an action is not applicable to
businesses. He said the car wash on MLK
is one of the most notorious drug dealing
locations in South Dallas.
The act of intimidation that occurred either
in 2001or2002 that involved a group of
officers (eleven police cars total) showing
up at the car wash on MLK with the intent
to intimidate the owner was inappropriate,
embarrassing, and stupid. It was done in
response to the car wash owner testifying
on behalf of a man cited for resisting arrest.
No action was taken internally against the
supervisor who carried out the act of
intimidation. Chief Kunkle agreed with
Rep. Keel that the action could be
potentially a civil rights violation or official
oppression under state law and he indicated
that the FBI has the information but was
unaware as to what has been done with it.

6

 Barbara Edmondson

Ex-owner of properties in Dallas. Ms.
Edmondson shared with the committee
instances in which police did not
adequately react to drug activities on or
near residential apartment locations. She
believes that only when pressured by the
Legislature will the police department
properly enforce the law. She was informed
by a Deputy Chief from the Southeast
station of the results of a raid on a drug
house: nine arrests were made, drugs and
weapons were obtained, and a sex offender
and a person carrying a gun were picked
up. She wonders why there is police
protection in certain areas and not in others.
Ms. Edmondson claims that police will not
address the Dixon Street and Grovewood
areas of Dallas. She has been told by police
that officers must tolerate drug dealing by
boys because they need to support their
families. The nuisance team has never
touched or closed down any of the real drug
houses on her street that she has reported.
She was told by Chief Paulhill that police
can only approach suspects based on
probable cause of gun activity and not drug
activity.
When an area is deteriorated, code
enforcement and police don't pay attention
because there are federal funds available to
refurbish the areas. Apartment tenants are
scared of the police and won't call when
disturbances arise, so they call the
apartment management to call the police
for them.
A manager at her firm, who she later found
out was dealing drugs, had contact with a
Dallas City Council member and a liaison
who told the manager that the police were
going to raid his area and for him to clean it
up.

Officer Ricardo Campbell

Dallas Police Officer. Officer Campbell

7

 patrols the area surrounding the Budget
Suites and found the management to be
cooperative in assisting to combat crime.
He wrote a letter of support on behalf of a
manager who was in fear oflosing his job
due to the activity that occurred on the
property. The letter stated that the
management was cooperative in helping the
police to reduce crime. As a result, Officer
Campbell was referred to Internal Affairs
for violating a general order regarding
outside correspondence. He was unaware
of who initiated the referral. To his
knowledge, there was a recommendation
from a chief that the complaint should have
been voided. He understands that it was
wrong to violate departmental policy in
writing the letter of support but would do it
again because he believes the community
and the police need to work together to
combat crime.
John Garner

Part-owner of Super Stop Beverage. Upon
its opening, his business was protested by
individuals Councilman Chaney.
Protestors were concerned that there were
too many liquor stores in the area. In 2003
and 2004 he was asked to donate $6,000 in
two gifts to Clean South Dallas and he did
so. Reps. Hodge and Keel questioned Mr.
Garner as to who requested the donations.
Mr. Garner stated that it was Councilman
Chaney and that he subsequently spoke
with the Councilman's staff regarding the
donation.

Dale Davenport

Owner of Jim's Car Wash. He was
approached by Telitha Shaw, a code
enforcement officer, who told him she
would have to write him a ticket based on
instructions from her supervisors. He
claims that he and another business owner
were told by Councilman Chaney that
"some business owners must die so others
can thrive" regarding a moratorium on

8

 businesses considered to be nonconforming uses and required to obtain
special-use permits to continue in
operation. He was told by Andy Seagal, an
attorney with the South Dallas Business
Association, that the Councilman was not
pleased with his commitments to the
community and that he needed to make a
donation to the African American Book
Fair. Mr. Davenport donated $500. In
January 2005, Mr. Davenport spoke to
Councilman Chaney about the injunction
on his business and Cheney suggested that
Davenport hire the Nation oflslam or JL
Security. Sixty percent of his revenue is
spent on guard service required by the
SAFE Team. As part of the injunction
placed against his business, he must
comply with all provisions of the judge's
order for one year.
Dwaine Caraway

Questioned the selective enforcement
targeted at Mr. Davenport's car wash
instead of the drug houses around the car
wash which he sees as more of a problem.

Robert Rowe

Mr. Rowe works as a night manager for a
real estate company that owns three large
apartment complexes in Dallas. He is also
a retired Dallas police officer. When he
calls the police because of a disturbance on
the property, he says they first tell him what
they cannot do. Then they proceed to tell
him that they will help the property if he
hires them off-duty. He would like an
Attorney General's opinion to determine if
it is legal to rent out police cars along with
officers. He relayed a story in which he told
police officers of a man who was beaten
and robbed and asked them to call the
ambulance. They told him they couldn't
respond even though they were in uniform
and in a police car because they were on
their way to work off-duty security jobs.

9

 Chief David Kunkle

The department began a program in the
early 1990s whereby neighborhood
associations can hire officers off-duty along
with old patrol cars that were to be put out
of service in order to patrol their residential
neighborhoods. He indicated that if he had
been chief at the time, he probably would
not have wanted to implement the program.
Rep. Dutton questioned the legality of the
program because it utilizes public property
for a private benefit. Chief Kunkle
responded that, in theory, the association is
paying the costs of the officer and the
patrol car along with the equipment in the
car. Rep. Dutton also stated that the
program may have constitutional problems
due to possible equal protection violations.
Rep. Keel also expressed concern that the
basic service taxpayers should receive from
the police force has been moved to a userfee basis. Rep. Dutton said that while
Dallas needs more police, the off-duty jobs
in the current form provide law
enforcement services only for those who
can afford to pay extra for those services.
He also suggested having constables
perform these off-duty neighborhood jobs
since their primary duty is not that of a
police function.
Chief Kunkle stated that the complaint
against Officer Campbell was received by
the police department and investigated.
The department found that no misconduct
occurred and he rescinded the complaint. In
response to a question from Rep. Keel, he
indicated that the complaint originated
from the City Attorney's office. Rep. Keel
said that the conduct by the City Attorney's
office was official oppression in that it was
attempting to intimidate an honest officer
who wrote a letter on behalf of a business
that is in an adverse situation with the City.

10

 Calvin Johnson

Se-Gwen Tyler

Attorney for Dale Davenport. Mr. Johnson
relayed a situation where two undercover
police officers were sent to view situations
occurring at Mr. Davenport's car wash. Mr.
Davenport called the police over 100 times
for assistance, but was response by DPD
was often too late. He asked the officers
during cross examination if they made any
arrests while undercover at the car wash.
They indicated they did not because they
didn't want to compromise their undercover
status. Mr. Davenport does everything he
can to fight crime on the property while
problem businesses in the neighborhood go
unnoticed by the City. He expressed
concern for the financial difficulties Mr.
Davenport has undergone with regard to the
City's stance against him.
Represents Arlington Park Neighborhood
Association Crime Watch. She is very
surprised to hear that police officers were
paid to patrol certain areas, which her
neighborhood cannot afford. She does not
want to see the nuisance law weakened or
abused. In her neighborhood there are
several drug houses that have been busted
four times during the past year. She is
concerned that the drug dealers are being
tipped off to the police raids because the
dealers act in the open but when the raids
, occur they are nowhere to be found. She
believes that drug dealing and prostitution
does occur in Budget Suites.

October 12. 2005
Tom Perkins

City of Dallas City Attorney. Mr. Perkins
testified that the City listened to concerns
expressed by the Legislature and initiated a
review of its SAFE Team practices and
procedures. The City Manager authorized
the formation of a Task Force comprised of
members of the business community,

11

 community groups, city offices, etc. to
improve the SAFE Team process. The Task
Force made sevei:al recommendations
designed to foster a more cooperative
approach in dealing with SAFE Team
enforcement. The goal is to reserve
litigation and aggressive procedures for
those situations where all other efforts have
failed.
Almost 2,000 SAFE Team investigations
were opened over a four-year period and
only 60 lawsuits were filed for an average
of 15 each year. He feels the City
Attorney's office use of the nuisance suits
has been judicious. He was asked to
respond to documents signed by Dallas
citizens stating that on April 7, 2005 they
were denied the right to testify before the
House Committee on Civil Practices. These
signed witness statements were prepared
and provided to citizens by the City. Mr.
Perkins said that although his office typed
the statements for the South Dallas citizens,
it was their own account of what occurred.
He admitted that the City legal office used
taxpayer dollars for the preparation and
distribution of the statements.
Mr. Perkins was asked to identify all
individuals who participated in the decision
to lodge an internal affairs complaint
against Officer Ricardo Campbell. He
testified that Asst. City Attorney Nicole
Hobeiche made the initial complaint
verbally through a phone call to the police
department. This complaint resulted in an
investigation. The complaint stemmed from
discovery responses during litigation with
Budget Suites that revealed the property
was providing local law enforcement
officers residence in exchange for their
agreement to patrol the property. He asked
the committee to review the last page of
their handout from the City, a grid of the

12

 Budget property. Officer Campbell is
shown as residing in one of the rooms. Mr.
Perkins was asked to produce all notes,
telephone memoranda, and background
information documenting what was used to
formulate the complaint. Mr. Perkins was
unable to provide the information to the
committee at that moment, but agreed to a
request by Rep. Keel to provide the
information to the committee at a later
time.
He was asked who was contacted or
interviewed as a result of the investigation.
Mr. Perkins responded that his office
simply turned over the information to DPD
and had no other role in the investigation.
He said Ms. Hobeiche spoke with the
Internal Affairs Department investigator
once. He was then asked to identify all the
individuals who participated in the
disciplinary process that was initiated and
concluded against the officer. Mr. Perkins
responded that he could not identify those
individuals and would need to request the
information from DPD. He was also asked
to identify all City Attorneys who
participated in the initiation of the
complaint and with the investigation
against Officer Campbell. Mr. Perkins was
unable to identify the individuals at that
moment, but agreed to provide the
committee with the names before the end of
the hearing.
Mr. Perkins was asked ifthe Task Force
included individuals from the hotel/motel
association or car wash association. He
responded that it did not. Of all the lawsuits
filed, there has only been one dealing with
a car wash. He said he did not feel that
certain groups were excluded, though he
admitted that he did not invite anyone from
the two associations mentioned. Mr.
Perkins outlined the City's new operating

13

 procedures. Rather than beginning an
investigation with full SAFE Team
involvement, Interactive Community
Policing (ICP) officers and patrol officers
will make an informal contact with the
business. Instead of sending SAFE Team
officers, local beat officers who are most
familiar with the site will respond and
begin the process of negotiating and
discussing the best solutions. At that point,
if they are unable to resolve the problem, a
recommendation will be made to open a
SAFE Team investigation.
This investigation requires documentation
from the SAFE Team and
recommendations from someone higher up
in the chain of command. If after this
review the decision is made to open up an
investigation, that process will then begin.
The SAFE Team will again attempt to
cooperate with the business and reach a
consensus. If there is still a problem with
the property, there will be another round of
recommendations and written
documentation followed by a decision
made by the First Assistant Chief of Police
who will ultimately decide whether or not
the case should be referred to the City
Attorney's office for litigation. Mr. Perkins
said this process will be a fair and good one
for all stakeholders. This plan will also
apply to residential communities.
He was asked what kind of funding is used
for SAFE teams. He responded that
General Fund monies from the Police
Department are used, in addition to some
Community Block Development Grant
funds.
Mr. Perkins was asked about the document
showing Officer Campbell's room at
Budget Suites. He said his office simply
turned the information over to chain of

14

 command. He was then asked how many
internal affairs complaints were filed on
other officers living at that residence. The
only complaint filed was against Officer
Campbell. Rep. Keel stated that the only
officer who had an IA complaint filed
against him at City Legal was the one
officer who befriended a business in an
adverse legal position with the City
Attorney's office. Mr. Perkins maintained
that his office did not know the relationship
between Officer Campbell and Budget
Suites.
Steven Stefani

Corporate Counsel for Budget Suites of
America. Mr. Stefani responded to an
inquiry as to how many DPD officers were
given residence at the aforementioned
Budget location. He responded that three
officers were provided residence and are
shown on the diagram the City provided to
the committee.

Tom Perkins

Mr. Perkins admitted that Officer Campbell
was the only officer his office contacted
DPD about but they did not file a
complaint, they simply notified chain of
command about what had occurred. The
chain of command made whatever
decisions they found appropriate at that
point. He stated that his office did not
actually contact Internal Affairs to file a
complaint; they contacted Lieutenant
Heam, head of the SAFE Team. Mr.
Perkins agreed that the only distinction
between Officer Campbell and the other
officers residing at Budget Suites was that
he wrote an honest letter on behalf of the
hotel and the City Attorney's office was in
adverse litigation with that property. He
could not explain why the names of the
other officers were not handed over to
DPD. He stated that his office did not know
what any of the officers were doing there or
whether it was legal or illegal. They alerted

15

 the police department to the one situation
involving Officer Campbell and turned it
over to them.
The text of Officer Campbell,s letter on
behalf of Budget Suites was read to the
committee. Mr. Perkins was asked if
anything in the letter was untrue. He replied
that he did not know that any of it was
false.
Ron Waldrop

Assistant Chief of the Dallas Police
Department, currently assigned as Bureau
Commander over all investigations in the
department. At the time of the incident
being discussed, he was the Patrol West
Bureau Commander and Officer Campbell
worked for him. Mr. Waldrop was in the
chain of command and reviewed the
investigation. He recommended the
department void the complaint and it was
subsequently voided. The investigation of
the complaint did not establish an
employment relationship between Officer
Campbell and Budget Suites. Had such a
relationship been in existence, it would
have been governed by departmental rules.
The only thing the complaint sustained was
that a letter was sent without going through
the proper chain of command. He
recommended to void the complaint
because such incidents are not uncommon
and the normal process for addressing such
a violation is to have a supervisor talk with
the officer. Mr. Waldrop stated that he did
not think the issue rose to the level of an
IAD complaint and recommended the
complaint be voided. Chief Kunkle agreed
and the entire investigation was rescinded.
He was asked by the committee how the
IAD complaint occurred. He confirmed that
it stemmed from a verbal notification of
Lieutenant Hearn. Technically, Lt. Hearn
requested the Internal Affairs investigation

16

 from an internal source. He agreed that the
City Attorney's complaint is what
technically generated the IAD complaint.
He added that the map did show other
officers residing at the Budget Suites and
included their names. Another officer was
interviewed on the matter of residency. The
map shows an FBI room, a general police
room, a room for Robert Garcia, and a
room for Officer Campbell. Regardless of
the content of the letter and whether it was
favorable or unfavorable to Budget Suites,
officers are not supposed to write such
letters without going through the proper
chain of command.
In response to questions about the
procedure for police officers working offduty, those officers must notify the
department of who is employing them,
specifically what they are doing, and the
conditions of employment. There are rules
about what an officer can and cannot do in
extra jobs. DPD manages and tracks the
off-duty employment of officers.
Marshall Cornelius

Self-employed at Jim's Car Wash. Mr.
Cornelius filed a complaint with Internal
Affairs after Officer Willie Demetrius
Byrd harassed, assaulted, and falsely
arrested him. Officer Byrd told Cornelius
that he could not wash cars at the car wash
and proceeded to follow him to his home.
Officer Byrd asked him to put his hands on
the car, at which point he handcuffed him.
He kicked Cornelius in the jaw three times
and hit him in the back of the head. He was
taken to detox where he stayed for two
hours before Officer Byrd transferred him
to Lou Sterrit jail where he was booked and
spent 21 days for criminal mischief. After
his release, Officer Byrd sought him out
again and asked him if he "had a good
vacation." He has not seen Officer Byrd

17

 since that visit. He provided the committee
with the statements he gave to Internal
Affairs in 2001. He has never heard from
them.
Mr. Cornelius believes this harassment
resulted from an incident when an
individual escaped from Officer Byrd.
Immediately after that event, Officer Byrd
told the carwash staff that he would harass
them until they told him where he could
find the individual who ran from him. No
one provided him with this information and
the harassment continued on a daily basis
with Officer Byrd forcing Mr. Cornelius
and other individuals to leave the property
because they were "pandering." Officer
Byrd does not engage in this conduct with
other car washes and he has told Mr.
Cornelius and others that they may go
down the street and wash cars at other
businesses.
Mr. Cornelius also described a scene at the
car wash where police officers arrested an
individual on October 4, 2005 while
wearing makeup and filming the incident.
Bobby Murphy

Mr. Murphy testified in court on behalf of
Kevin Black in a dispute about whether it
was Officer Byrd who assaulted him or Mr.
Black who assaulted Officer Byrd. Kevin
Black was acquitted and Mr. Murphy
testified as a witness to the incident. The
day after his testimony, Officer Byrd told
him he would take him to jail every time he
saw him. Mr. Murphy did not file a
complaint with Internal Affairs.

Thomas Scott

Owner of The Wash Rack car wash. He has
experienced numerous difficulties with
homeless individuals, drug dealers, and
prostitutes on his property. After learning
of the situation with DPD and other car
washes, he is now afraid to call DPD for

18

 help with problems on his property for fear
oflosing his business. Mr. Scott purchased
a Taser gun and pepper spray for
protection. On two occasions DPD officers
told him that hiring off-duty officers would
help to eliminate the problems on his
property. He also had an officer tell him
that every time he calls DPD, it is recorded
on the computer and counted against him.
Another officer told him that Dale
Davenport was in cahoots with the drug
dealers and other criminal elements.
Mr. Scott has also asked for help with
neighboring properties, but has never seen
any results. He spoke with a SAFE Team
officer about prostitutes living in cardboard
boxes on the creek behind his car wash.
They did not arrest the prostitutes, but did
ask them to leave. Homeless people inhabit
an abandoned building next door to his and
after numerous calls, he was promised the
property would be turned over to the City
Attorney's office. No action has been
taken. He testified that police are aware of
drug dealing and crack houses that operate
year after year with no consequences while
honest businesspeople are harassed.
He approached officers within one block of
his car wash and asked for help with
homeless people on his property. The
officers told him they could not assist him
and instructed him to call 911. Mr. Scott
estimated that when calling 911 it typically
takes an hour and a half before anyone
appears. He did have an officer take
immediate action on one occasion but Mr.
Scott cautioned that such behavior is not
the norm.
James Mosser

Mr. Mosser is a lawyer who would like
Chapter 125 repealed because it is used by
the City to abuse property owners. Even
when people fully comply, the City does

19

 not care and continues to harass
individuals. Furthermore, the City does not
respond to emergency calls. During trials
he has questioned DPD officers who admit
that they don't arrest prostitutes and drug
users because they can't keep them in jail
long enough or are waiting to catch larger
dealers. Furthermore, he feels that the
evidentiary standard should be changed to
"clear and convincing."
Willie Mae Coleman

Ms. Coleman is a resident of South Dallas
who signed one of the statements prepared
by the City Attorney's office. She stated
that she prepared it along with the City. She
had to leave the hearing that occurred in
April at 9pm and could not testify.
She has reported approximately ten crack
houses to the city and all but one has been
eliminated. The remaining crack house is
located on York Street.

William Vandivort

Mr. Vandivort is a Lake Highlands resident
who described the efforts of his
neighborhood association. He would like
more nuisance suits filed by the City and
the law strengthened.

Cheryl Pucci

Ms. Pucci represents the Apartment
Association of Greater Dallas. She
expressed her gratitude for HB 1690, which
has greatly improved the SAFE Team
process. She testified that apartment
communities are lacking the same services
and experiencing the same problems as
businesses. In 2003, the apartment industry
spent $40 million in security costs because
they could not acquire police protection.
Half of that cost was spent on hiring offduty police officers. The $40 million figure
does not include costs for lights, gating,
intrusion alarms, etc.
Ms. Pucci described a 540-unit property at

20

 Preston and Beltline, where she learned
there were 4 abatable crimes in one year.
These crimes did not appear on any police
reports, crime statistics, or information
given at monthly meetings. The SAFE
Team visited the property with five police
officers and a fire inspector, who went door
to door testing smoke alarms.
She stated that she did not attend the
property's Accord meeting with the City
because she refused to be videotaped.
Her refusal was based on information she
received from a SAFE Team Sergeant who
explained that participants are videotaped
so the footage can be used against them in
court proceedings.
During these meetings participants were
also required to give the city their driver
license. When the president of Ms. Pucci's
company attended the Accord meeting, he
received two citations for failing to attend a
previous meeting, even though he sent
representatives on his behalf. The citations
were dismissed once an attorney was hired.

Steven Stefani

When these procedures were brought to the
Police Chief's attention, they were
changed.
Corporate Counsel for Budget Suites of
America. Mr. Stefani described difficulties
Budget Suites is experiencing with the
City. His· company requested to be advised
of all undercover activities on their
property so they could assist the police
department. They have been told that they
cannot be given such information, despite
the fact that no other law enforcement
agency in the nation has ever refused this
request. The hotels are always apprised of
undercover activities so they can protect
their people and the operation.

21

 In August 2005, they were made aware of
undercover activities that had taken place
throughout the month. Mr. Stefani said the
timing of those activities is suspect, as it is
two months after the legislation was passed
and five months after the Rule 11
agreement was entered into between the
Budget Suites and City of Dallas. Under
this agreement, both parties agreed to
suspend active prosecution of the hotel's
defense and active prosecution of their case
to allow Budget's system time to work. If
they were working, the City would dismiss.
In that five month period, there was not one
abatable offense that occurred at the Budget
Suites on Stemmons Freeway until the
undercover activities. If not for the
undercover activities ofDPD directly
calculated at their property and facilitated
by individuals experienced and charged
with the duty to create crime on that
property, there would be no abatable crime
reported for the month of August.
Budget Suites investigated the content of
the letter they received on September 7,
2005 from the City Attorney's office. There
were a total of 8 potentially abatable
offenses, mainly drug buys, but also one of
which was an assault with a weapon. The
assault did not show up on surveillance
tapes and Budget Suites has no way to
confirm it. The undercover drug buys are
not identified with any specificity- no
individual is named, no time and date, and
no description that helps Budget Suites
abate the crime.
Mr. Stefani said Budget Suites requested an
agreement in September during a meeting
with Deputy Chief Bernal, Assistant City

Attorney Jennifer Richie, City Attorney
Tom Perkins, and Officer Thompson.
Two undercover drug buys were listed in

22

 the September 7th letter that an
investigation by Budget Suites revealed to
be off-property incidents that had been
brought on property or assigned to the
property. As a result, Mr. Stefani requested
an agreement from the City Attorney's
office and DPD that any abatable incident
developed off-property but brought onto
the property solely by undercover officers
living on Budget Suites property, and
where there was no other relationship
between the other actors in that criminal
transaction to the property, would not be
held against Budget Suites as abatable
offenses. The City refused to make that
agreement.
He testified that Ms. Richie claims the
scenario involved prostitution and that is
not the case. When prostitutes are found
living on the property and bringing clients
onto the property, Budget Suites is
committed to stopping such activity. The
point of the agreement was that Budget
Suites should not be held accountable for
undercover crime stings that occur off of its
property. Since that meeting, Budget Suites
has evicted two individuals they later
learned were undercover officers who were
involved in various undercover activities.
He stated that it is his understanding that
the police department is extremely upset
that these officers were evicted.
Mr. Stefani stated that the City Attorney's
office will literally resort to tactics that
compromise their ethics, the integrity of
pending litigation, and the law. The City
Attorney's office has sought to manipulate
the course of discovery in their litigation by
tampering with a witness and by seeking to
quiet any other witnesses that may provide
positive testimony for Budget Suites'
defense.

23

 The complaint against Officer Campbell
was frivolous and the City Attorney
directly involved in litigation has no
business lodging an unethical complaint.
Two other DPD officers received free
housing and one Budget Suites room is
identified as a General Apartment because
there were several different officers using
it. No complaints were lodged against
them.
He feels the committee should thoroughly
investigate further the prosecution of each
common nuisance lawsuit brought by the
City of Dallas.
James Bearden told Mr. Stefani that if
they hired a Lieutenant or Sergeant from
DPD, their ''problems would go away." Mr.
Bearden has administrated the
examinations for the Texas Commission on
Private Security for 20 years. Mr. Stefani
stated the he would provide the committee
with additional information on Mr.
Bearden.
Mr. Stefani showed photographs of the
Stemmons Freeway property. He gave the
committee a videotape of a Channel 11
story from April 2005 where the Mayor
boasts about the success of the common
nuisance legislation and a Lieutenant talks
about hiring off-duty officers.
He also discussed the lnTown Suites
directly adjacent to Budget Suites. Budget
Suites' security efforts have identified that
prostitutes and drug dealers live on the
lnTown property. A confidential informant
that the City used in an undercover
operation was living at the InTown suites
and coming over to Budget Suites. There
has been no action against the InTown
Suites. Budget Suites offered the property a
list of individuals no longer eligible to stay

24

 at Budget Suites' properties and lnTown
declined the information. Budget Suites
Regional Manager Dana Alexander stayed
at the lnTown Suites and left shortly after
midnight because she felt unsafe due to the
presence of prostitutes and drug dealers.
Budget Suites has chosen not to hire offduty police officers. Instead, they hire
security personnel who all have a minimum
of five years actual law enforcement
experience. Most of their security personnel
are former military police with
investigative backgrounds.
Dale Davenport

Owns Jim's Car Wash on 2702 MLK Blvd.
He and his father bought the property in
1993 and invested $250,000 in the car
wash after the purchase. He read a quote
published in the Dallas Morning News on
September 5, 2005, from Senior Corporal
Sheldon Smith, who discusses his need for
off-duty employment. Mr. Smith
participated in Mr. Davenport's Accord
meeting in 2001. Mr. Davenport said he
feels this is a conflict of interest.
In 2001, the SAFE Team told him there
were drugs on the property. When his
father suggested a sting operation and that
they work with the police, the police
laughed. In 2003, the City filed a temporary
restraining order against their business. The
Davenports attended an Accord meeting
during which they were told that they
needed to do additional things to improve
the safety of their property. While Mr.
Davenport said they would install cameras,
the City Attorney's office wanted them to
hire a guard service instead. Two weeks
after hiring guards, Charlie Kim said the
City was not happy with the guard service
and they needed to do a better job
patrolling the property. This complaint
occurred when they already had two armed

25

 guards patrolling a property that is less than
25,000 square feet. He and his guard
service have worked tirelessly to comply
with the City. However, they asked him to
fund 72 hours a week of security. The cost
of this was prohibitive and demonstrates
how businesses cannot survive with the
City's current attitude. The permanent
injunction is on their property until
November 19th, 2005.
Mr. Davenport stated that he has called the
police department over 100 times. The
more he called the police, the more he was
considered a public nuisance by the City.
He showed an incident report where his
home was shot at on March 28, 2002, after
testifying in the Kevin Black case. He went
to Internal Affairs, but it was never
investigated. He recently learned that case
is just now being examined.
Ms. Richie stated on Channel 11 that there
was a murder at his car wash. She
referenced this during the trial, as well.
Witnesses who saw the incident said it
occurred 300-400 feet away from his
property. Mr. Davenport stated that the City
of Dallas will do anything to build a case
against business owners.
He reviewed tapes of an arrest that
happened on the car wash property
involving officers in makeup holding
camcorders. After investigating, he learned
that it was for the filming of the television
program Cops. Mr. Davenport did not give
anyone permission to film a fake drug bust
on their property and wondered how they
were able to use DPD vehicles.
Tom Perkins

Mr. Perkins responded to questions about
the Cops incident. He stated the he knows
nothing about it, but would try to provide

26

 the committee with information.

27

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In fulfilling the charge to monitor the use of the nuisance abatement authority by the
City of Dallas, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and the House General
Investigating and Ethics Committee held a joint public hearing in Dallas and heard many
hours of public testimony. The committees also received and reviewed numerous documents
provided by city officials and concerned citizens. A review of the testimony and documents
reveals that the concerns expressed by citizens and legislators during the regular session have
not been resolved and the interim study has raised new concerns.
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
Multiple witness~s testified before the committees and repeated the allegations made
during the regular session concerning the City of Dallas: that the city has in many instances
targeted honest businesses in a selective application of the nuisance statute; that the number
of abatable offenses used against a property included activities instigated by the police
themselves (i.e., undercover operations where criminals are solicited by police to come on
the property or traffic stops that happen to occur in the same block as the business); and that
property owners were directed to hire off-duty Dallas Police Department officers with the
implication that doing so would help end their legal conflict with the city. The most
troubling aspect for the committees was testimony about the continuation of these practices
even after the effective date of H.B. 1690, which included legislative changes designed to
curtail these types of abuses.
The committees also heard testimony about new allegations that were equally
disturbing. Chief among these addressed possible inappropriate attempts at witness
retaliation involving the Budget Suites property located at 8150 North Stemmons Freeway,
which at the time was being sued by the City of Dallas under the nuisance statute.
The incident concerned a letter of support written on behalf of the hotel by a Dallas
patrol officer. The manager of the Budget Suites was justifiably concerned that crime
statistics in and around the hotel, including crime brought onto the property by undercover
Dallas police operations, traffic stops on the parking lot or public street adjacent to the
property, or calls for assistance from the hotel itself, were being used by the City of Dallas as
evidence that the business failed to abate crime. The manager approached several Dallas
police officers to solicit a general letter of support for the hotel's efforts to combat criminal
activity on the property. One officer, Ricardo Campbell, agreed to the request. On October
27, 2004, Officer Campbell provided the manager with a handwritten letter in which he
stated in part:

"/would like to commend the manager ofthe Budget Suites Hotel for their pro active
approach in fighting crime at their establishment. Dallas police officers have made
numerous arrests do (sic) to surveillance rooms that were provided through the Budget
Suites Hotel. Management is very pro active in assisting officers by providing information
and calling the police when they have a problem. "

29

 The letter is dated only five days after the Dallas City Attorney's Office officially filed a
nuisance suit against Budget Suites. It is undisputed that Officer Campbell was unaware of
the lawsuit when he wrote the letter to simply acknowledge the cooperation he had
experienced first-hand as an officer working that patrol area.
On October 28, 2004, Officer Campbell's letter was provided to the City Attorney's
Office by an attorney for Budget Suites during a meeting to discuss the lawsuit. On that
same day, the assistant city attorney assigned to the case contacted the head of the SAFE
(Support Abatement Forfeiture and Enforcement) team responsible for conducting
investigations against nuisance properties and objected to the letter, saying it could adversely
affect the city's position in the lawsuit. This complaint initiated an internal affairs
investigation against Officer Campbell.
The internal affairs investigation was ultimately jettisoned by the police department
administration on its own initiative. However, Officer Campbell received a verbal reprimand
regarding the writing of the letter.
The subject matter of this testimony--- an obvious attempt to intimidate a potential
witness who simply wrote favorable comments about a business --- raised much concern for
the committees. It is apparent that the internal affairs investigation was initiated through the
influence of the City Attorney's Office, which was in an adverse legal position with the
business in question. Members of the City Attorney's Office took exception to a Dallas
police officer saying something favorable --- and by all accounts truthful --- about that
business, and attempted to punish him. The committees expressed their apprehension that
such an act of attempted intimidation might constitute official oppression by city officials
and, at the very least, supported charges that the city acts in a heavy-handed and retaliatory
manner when enforcing its nuisance ordinance.
Enforcement of nuisance laws is not and cannot be based solely on an owner's
awareness of the occurrence of crime on their property. In fact, because Dallas has one of the
highest crime rates in the nation, business owners often find themselves victimized by crime.
Business owners should only be held responsible for criminal activities that occur on their
premises if there is some evidence that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to stop crime
or is tolerating the illegal activity. The incident involving the letter from Officer Campbell
sustains allegations made by citizens that the City of Dallas often ignores the good faith
efforts of property owners to fight criminal activity and instead misuses the nuisance
abatement law to punitively target certain businesses.
Similarly, the committees found the testimony concerning the practices used by the
city in its "accord meetings" equally troubling. These meetings are held as a means of
informal arbitration to supposedly facilitate a discussion about suggested strategies for
property owners to prevent criminal activity by others on their property. If the property
owner fails to make reasonable attempts to stop the activity, the SAFE team then refers the
case to the City Attorney's Office for the possible filing of a nuisance suit.

30

 Citizens testified that the accord meetings resemble more of an interrogation of an
arrestee rather than an exchange of information. The city uses intimidation tactics such as
requiring property owners or their representatives to surrender their driver's license before
being admitted to the meeting as well as obtaining consent to be videotaped, ostensibly for
use in court if an agreement can not be reached. Anyone who refused consent was barred
from the meeting by the city with the threat that the city would use their "failure to attend"
the meeting as further evidence of their unwillingness to combat crime on their property.
This testimony again supports the contention that there is an unfair and misdirected culture
among the city's nuisance abatement personnel toward property owners who may themselves
be victims of crime and who attend these meetings in a good faith attempt to cooperate with
the city to combat criminal activity on their property.
The committees also heard from citizens who expressed concern about the
inadequacy oflaw enforcement resources to help fight crime on their properties and in their
communities. The committees were told by representatives of properties under a nuisance
investigation and by ordinary citizens that police officers routinely suggested that the only
effective solution to potential adverse nuisance abatement litigation from the city was hiring
off-duty Dallas police officers. The implication was clear - that only through the
supplemental hiring of off-duty officers could basic police service be expected to take place
and citizens could not expect the city police department to effectively address crime in their
area.
In essence, the citizens of Dallas, who have paid their taxes for law enforcement
services from the police department, were in some cases being told that even basic calls for
service would be ignored. Some witnesses alleged they were told by the police department
not to call about anything unless it was a life and death situation. It bears repeating that
such calls were also being used as a threat to be counted against the caller, who would then
potentially find themselves as a defendant in a possible nuisance abatement action from the
City Attorney's Office.
The committees heard evidence, which had also been heard by the House Committee
on Civil Practices during the 79th Regular Session, alleging that certain elected officials were
involved in directing property owners to hire certain security personnel or make contributions
to particular causes in order to mitigate the city's pursuit of the business through the nuisance
abatement statute.
Underlying the repeated allegations heard by the committees is a recurrent theme of
ward-based politics run amok as the selective enforcement of nuisance laws protect
politically-connected insiders and punish their competitors. The committees heard
allegations of undue political influence being used to benefit businesses and property owners
who responded favorably to "suggestions" that they channel funds into an incumbent
official's favored non-profit organization or that they hire security personnel from a company
owned by another local elected official with powerful political ties. Those who refuse to play
by such rules, the committees heard repeatedly, found themselves the target ofrandom police

31

 searches, fire and other code inspections and costly, time-consuming litigation. Worse yet
were allegations of deliberate acts of intimidation by uniformed police including at least one
reported instance of assault and false arrest and another account, verified by city officials, of
nearly a dozen marked patrol cars converging on the premises of a business in apparent
retaliation following the owner's testimony in court on behalf of an individual charged with
resisting arrest and who was subsequently acquitted of all charges.
As a result, the committees are gravely concerned that the problems stemming from
Dallas' use of the nuisance laws are the result of a unique and incorrect interpretation of those
laws by city officials -- wrongly taking the laws to mean that fighting crime is no longer the
city's responsibility but has instead now become primarily the responsibility of private
citizens and businesses; and that private citizens can be held strictly liable for crimes that
take place on or near their property even when they are not involved in that crime, have taken
affirmative steps to prevent the crime, are themselves victims of that crime, and have
reported the crime, requesting the assistance oflaw enforcement agencies. Furthennore, the
body of evidence available to the committees also strongly suggests that the city uses the
nuisance laws to intimidate, promote cronyism, and inappropriately use law enforcement
personnel, specifically uniformed police and code enforcement officers, to deliver not-toosubtle messages of coercion and retaliation to legitimate businesses and property owners who
refuse to submit to such tactics.
It should be noted that during his relatively short tenure, the current Dallas Chief of
Police, David Kunkle, has attempted to change some of the troubling ways the city exercises
its enforcement of the nuisance laws. On October 1, 2005, at Chief Kunkle's
recommendation, the size of the SAFE team was reduced from fifteen officers, three
sergeants and one lieutenant to seven officers and a single sergeant out of concern that having
so many people working on the SAFE team could result in filing inappropriate cases.
Procedures for the accord meetings were modified in response to legitimate complaints about
the hostile and adversarial approach taken by the city. The attention given to these issues by
Chief Kunkle is admirable and the committees believe most employees and officials of the
City of Dallas are dedicated to serving the public with honor and integrity. However, the
abuses recounted in extensive testimony indicate enough grave irregularities in the city's
conduct that the committees remain skeptical that the city, and the City Attorney's Office in
particular, will appropriately exercise discretion in the pursuit of nuisance lawsuits in the
absence of further legislative action.
SUMMARY
The committees received live testimony and other documentary evidence that shows a
continuing pattern of abuse in the utilization of Chapter 125, Civil Practice & Remedies
Code, by the City of Dallas. Over the past few years, the legislature has responded to the
legitimate need of municipalities for stronger nuisance laws to help rid their communities of
scourges such as crack houses, locations for proliferation of prostitution, and the plague of
abandoned inner-city properties. Cities such as Dallas have faced very real difficulties in
dealing with absentee landlords or owners who conveniently tum a blind eye to the illicit

32

 drug trade or prostitution taking place on their properties. However, evidence presented to
the committees strongly suggests that the broadened police powers the legislature intended
for cities to use with thoughtful discretion have instead been misused by the City of Dallas to
target legitimate businesses while ignoring crime on adjacent properties. Routine traffic
stops, where drivers are pulled off of public roads onto specific private properties, are often
used by the city as evidence against the unwitting property owner instead of the alleged
perpetrator. In addition, undercover agents have invited illegal activities such as potential
drug deals and prostitution onto specific private properties so that the city could then use
those arrests against the unsuspecting property owner. Calls to police by property owners
who observe criminal activity taldng place on their property have in many instances not
resulted in the arrest of the perpetrator, but instead have been used as evidence against the
property owner for failure to stop the crime. Private property owners have in some cases
been scolded for calling the police and told by city officials that the solution is to hire offduty Dallas police officers. Money has been solicited by politicians from businesses
involved in conflicts with the city over enforcement of the nuisance laws, with the clear
implication that such contributions would mitigate that business' problems with the city.
Personnel with the City Attorney's Office have engaged in attempts to intimidate one police
witness solely because the officer's honesty could potentially hann the city's legal position in
a civil lawsuit against a business.
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
The House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and the House General Investigating
and Ethics Committee submit the following recommendations for consideration by the 80th
Legislature:
•

legislation should be considered regarding the propriety of a city using criminal
activity that was brought onto a property by law enforcement when that city takes
action against that property under Chapter 125, Civil Practice & Remedies Code;

•

the legislature should consider addressing the appropriateness and legality of
municipalities utilizing Chapter 125 to selectively target a particular business while
crime proliferates on adjacent properties and is ignored;

•

the legislature should consider whether it is an appropriate use of government
personnel and equipment for cities to sell police protection for a separate user fee
where the city has purposefully discouraged citizens and businesses from calling for
help from the police in ordinary circumstances;

•

the legislature should continue to monitor the use ofthe nuisance abatement authority
by the City of Dallas to ensure that the provisions of House Bill 1690 are faithfully
implemented; and

33

 •

the legislature should consider enacting a procedure for specific sanctions that can be
sought by the Texas Attorney General and levied against an offending municipality if
abuses in the utilization of Chapter 125 are proven.
ADDITIONAL ORDER

The House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and the House General Investigating
and Ethics Committee direct the committee clerks to forward a copy of this report and
relevant documents to the State Bar of Texas for a determination of any violation of rules of
professional responsibility pertaining to the role of the Dallas City Attorney's Office in
initiating an internal affairs investigation against Officer Ricardo Campbell and the
committees furthermore direct the State Bar of Texas to report its progress and findings to
the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee.

34