By Katie Miller, Litigation Fellow, & Sandra Park, Staff Attorney, ACLU Women’s Rights Project
Across the country, a growing number of cities are adopting nuisance ordinances that impose fines and criminal penalties on landlords and tenants when the police are called too many times to the property. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, landlords may be fined if the police are called to the premises three or more times within 30 days. While the stated goal is to deter crime and recoup costs, these ordinances endanger domestic violence survivors, particularly women of color.
Property nuisance ordinances can take a variety of forms, but generally impose fines or other sanctions on building owners and tenants when the police are called to the premises a certain number of times, or where certain offenses are alleged to have occurred on the property. Under these ordinances, the only practical way for an owner to abate the "nuisance" and avoid a penalty is to evict the resident who called the police or whose home was the site of the alleged offense.
These ordinances present two very serious problems for women who experience domestic violence or stalking, two crimes that often occur in one’s home: They may prevent victims from calling the police when they are endangered by an abuser or stalker, and they may result in housing discrimination against victims of domestic violence. The ACLU of Washington raised both of these concerns when a nuisance ordinance was adopted in Seattle.
If a tenant knows that multiple calls to the police will lead to eviction, she may feel forced to remain silent to avoid homelessness. This means that a victim of domestic violence may not be able to seek police assistance when she faces abuse or needs to enforce a restraining order.
Take Laurie Grape: After two calls to the police for protection from her abusive ex-boyfriend, Grape was warned that a third call would result in eviction pursuant to the nuisance ordinance in East Rochester, N.Y. Although her ex-boyfriend continued to threaten her, Grape did not contact the police because she feared that she and her children would lose their home.
In situations where an alleged "nuisance" offense is related to an incident of domestic violence, landlords may choose to evict all the residents to avoid future incidents or police calls that could result in a fine. Yet, these evictions violate federal law. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made it clear that tenants who are denied or evicted from housing because they have suffered domestic violence can file sex discrimination complaints with HUD under the federal Fair Housing Act.
Because these ordinances may disproportionately affect domestic violence survivors, most of whom are women, we are concerned that they deny women their right to housing. If you have been evicted or threatened with eviction because you experienced domestic violence, or have been discouraged from calling the police to report domestic violence, we want to hear from you: www.aclu.org/dvsurvey.



17 Comments

damn. that’s a harsh situation. recommended.
wow…this is horrible. I was a dv counselor for years. Men don’t leave just because you ask them. This is ridiculous. In my situation, I called cops on New Years Eve. They said that they could not make him leave because he had established residency in that, he had lived there for over a month. They took him away…a few miles. They did not remove his key. He got back to my apartment at about 3:30 am. Do you know how hard it is to call the cops after you called them already, and all they did was drop him off far away. He walked 5 miles that night to get home. This is crazy. I did file a p.o the next day… but this is just wrong on soooooo many levels. The average woman goes back 7 times before she leaves.
ouch and ouch. It’s just another zero sum game, as the US transforms from a first world country and society into third world status within a generation. Cities across the country are facing their tightest budgets in years because of the near depression of our economy. Services are strained to the breaking point so we will see more of these types of “nuisance” ordinances – which will hurt the most vulnerable as an unintended consequence.
Makes me want to make a bumper sticker that reads:
Obama’s America: We’re Winning the Race to the Bottom!
This is a horrible defect in an otherwise necessary law. There needs to be some definition in the law that differentiates between calls from victims and calls involving third party actions (witnessing a crime).
However, there is also another angle: what about the apartment owner whose other tenants are constantly disturbed, even endangered, because a woman won’t leave her abusive husband/boyfriend/ex AND won’t get a Order of Protection or RO? And what about the other tenants? They have a right to a little peace and quiet, not to mention safety. Like I said, this law is obviously defective, but I can see a valid need for a well-crafted law that lets landlords get rid of tenants who are involved in unlawful or disruptive activity, whether that’s drug dealing or constant drunken behavior or gang activity.
BTW: Until a recent law change in CA, tenants who complained to landlords about illegal activity in the building (esp. drug dealing and gang banging) had to have their names made part of any eviction order. Obviously, this set up the law-abiding complaining tenants for harassment and retaliation by the gangs. Made it difficult for well-intentioned landlords to make their buildings safer for tenants.
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if many of these consequences are actually unintended. Anyone with a shred of decency and common sense could either predict them or avoid them by refusing to pass such legislation when legitimate concerns are voiced.
so punish the woman. This is how women end up dead. Domestic violence is the number two cause of accidental death after car accidents. This is ridiculous. all this will do is cause her to be quiet as she is beaten, be submissive and obey him so she doesn’t lose her home. The answer is for other people to call the police on the noise. this works. A coordinated community response that puts the consequences on the abuser. If you keep calling the cops when he beats her…she gets her sleep. Yes, the cops have to work at it…but if they take him to jail for dv which is illegal. Everybody sleeps. And maybe you will prevent a murder. A dear friend of mine, heard the fighting in her apartment night after night. They heard the crying. They never called the police. I educated her about dv but she still was unsure about making the call. The next night she was killed. My friend heard the gunshot and heard her hit the floor. She had discussed the situation at work and had tremendous guilt for not making the call. She was full of judgments toward the woman and refused to see that you cannot win against these guys…that’s why cops are afraid of them. You are in more danger when you leave, more chance of being killed after the p.o than before.
agree. eviction is serious, serious. Hard to live anywhere if landlords see an eviction on your credit history.
No, I didn’t say punish the woman. I said:
a) Revise the law.
b) In some cases women have to take the necessary steps to protect themselves, and to give law enforcement the tools to respond in a stronger way than just coming out every time you call. You can’t expect your neighbors to have their safety and peace of mind constantly compromised because you won’t do the right thing.
I’m certain the original intent of the law was to stop the equivalent of the “911, my hamburger had ketchup on it, i specifically said no ketchup come down here and arrest for not returning my money after I ate the entire burger.”
They made it WAY too broad though.
We’ve all heard the “911, my friend borrowd my x box 360 and is late returning it, jail time plz!” ridiculous calls, a law discouraging bullshit calls made by halfwits who don’t know 911 is for EMERGENCIES might be necessary in some areas if the lines get tied up with ridiculous ****.
Then make an exclusion for D.V. I would be cool with that, but clearly something must be done. Women and children may be die over this rule.
While I agree with the domestic violence issues raised in this article, it seems that these ordinances discriminate against crime victims in general. A person who calls the police to report any criminal act places himself in jeopardy not only from the criminals but even his landlord. If there are, for example, drug dealers in a building the landlord should be evicting the dealers for committing crimes on his property and the police should be supporting him and responding to tenants reports not punishing those who make them. If there are muggers and rapists in a public park should the public be banned and the park given over to criminals? Laws should not be designed to punish the victims of crime.
There are already laws that pertain to the illegal activities at those so called nuisance properties. What the law is trying to do is put the legal responsibility onto the property owners. It would be like blaming a town or city for the illegal activity at any public space. Even if you close down public spaces there will still be just as much illegal activity.
Hell if you think about it these nuisance properties are easy pickings for law enforcement. They should just do their jobs.
Another example of why a new law wont fix anything. laws already exist to deal with the illegal activity why not just enforce those laws? The most likely reason is that the people who wrote the law do not like seeing those properties exist. Just seems incredibly hateful to tear down a perfectly good building just because you didnt like seeing the people different then you living there.
I have lived in some of these places that would have been torn down. While yes I agree the illegal activity and the dangerous people that go along with such activity is a bit over the top. And yes something needs to be done. The main reason being that there always are children living at those places. I just think that showing a police presence would work. If law enforcement spent more time hanging out there rather then trying to get that motorist. Then there would be plenty of man hours for taking care of what law enforcement is paid for.
Like a Mini-Me of anti-whistle blower laws and regs but directed at the society at large and with an ugly directedness towards those who tend to suffer the most from crime– children, women and elders. It’s purely intentional to further destroy the social fabric. Instead of bombing the domestic population back to the Stone Age, the intention is to legislate it there courtesy of the torture “psychologists” and attorneys from the DoD. The people behind this intend to persecute and prosecute truth, merit and virtue wherever it merely exists.
Here is another aspect of the pernicious legal philosophy the ACLU presenter is pointing out which is NOT about community policing but instead is designed as asymmetrical guerrilla warfare on your own citizenry by your own damn military-run national police brought to you by a “Unitary Executive”:
“SWAT Team Kills Dog With Child Present, Arrest Father In Misdemeanor Marijuana Bust”
By: Jane Hamsher Thursday May 6, 2010 8:19 am
Good point…if you live in a really bad neighbor apartment complex, or row house…you could get in trouble for being the neighborhood watch dog. eeek.
This is like the NRA…some nice folks support the NRA…but if you were a criminal, would you support gun control or the NRA??
“asymmetrical guerrilla warfare on your own citizenry by your own damn military-run national police brought to you by a “Unitary Executive”
You need to explain a couple things here. What is “asymmetrical guerrilla warfare”? And what is this? “military-run national police” You have a link to a SWAT failure video. So i must assume that you think swat teams are national police? Are you confusing local law enforcement SWAT teams with the FBI SWAT teams? They are only related by name.
It’s even worse for the male victims who call the police, as they are usually the one to be arrested.
http://otherfaceofabuse.org