Skip to Main Page Content

Report an accessibility problem

 SIGN IN
 ASU Home
o News/Events
o Academics
o Research
o Athletics
o Alumni
o Giving
o President
o About ASU
 My ASU
 Colleges and Schools
o Arts and Sciences
o Business
o Design and the Arts
o Education
o Engineering
o Future of Innovation in Society
o Graduate
o Health Solutions
o Honors
o Journalism
o Law
o Nursing and Health Innovation
o Public Service and Community Solutions
o Sustainability
o University College
o Thunderbird School of Global Management
 Map and Locations
o Map
o Tempe
o West
o Polytechnic
o Downtown Phoenix
o Online and Extended
o Lake Havasu
o Corporate Engagement and Strategic Partnerships
o Research Park
o Washington D.C.
o China
 Directory
Search
Search
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

 About Us
 POP Guides
 Translations
 Library
 POP Projects
 Learning Center
 Awards & Conferences
o POP Conferences
o Goldstein Awards & Submissions
o Tilley Awards & Submissions
 POP Administration

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

POP Center Problems Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets Page 3

Responses to the Problem of Drug Dealing in

Open-Air Markets
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the
factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a
baseline for measuring effectiveness, we suggest you consider possible responses to
address the problem.

When devising a strategy to tackle your local market, it is important to think not simply in
terms of arresting offenders, but to also consider how best to disrupt the mechanism of
the market. The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for
addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of
research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your
community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and
that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an
effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law
enforcement alone is seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit
yourself to considering what police can do. Give careful consideration to who else in
your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better
respond to it.
General Considerations for an Effective Strategy
Local crime managers have difficult decisions to make about containment or dispersal
of open-air markets. The case is often argued that the best way of handling illicit
markets where either drugs or sexual services are sold—is to tolerate a low level of
buying and selling in a single site, provided that this remains within limits and falls within
implicit rules. The rationale for this is that dispersing a single site to several new
"satellite sites" might lead to a more rapid growth of the illicit market than a strategy of
single-site containment. Although popular, there is no research evidence in support of
this approach. There are also ethical questions about the legitimacy of requiring one
community to shoulder the burden of hosting a drug market in the long term, simply to
protect other communities from similar harms.

Whichever approach you choose, it is unlikely that you will be able to eradicate the drug
market completely. Preventative strategies will most likely transform open markets into
closed markets. However, suppressing an open drug market could lead to a reduction in
related illegal activities in the locality and is likely to improve the quality of life for
residents living in the neighborhood. The most effective interventions are those that
have been tailored to a specific area. There is also the growing recognition that
enforcement alone will have a limited effect and that a collaborative multi-agency
approach can achieve more substantial change.31
Drug Enforcement
Police enforcement activity, especially a crackdown or sweep, is likely to result in an
increased arrest rate. It is important that police coordinate their approach with other
criminal justice agencies in order to lessen the potential impact that this could have on
the resources of the criminal justice system. Arrest is only a deterrent if the end result is
appropriate sentencing and it has been suggested that although large enforcement
operations are intended to send the message that dealing will be dealt with harshly, the
reality is that in many cases, those apprehended will serve little or no time in jail. 32 In
the mid-1980s Washington Square Park in New York City was targeted by police
officers and arrest rates rose dramatically—up 300 percent from 1984 to 1986. In 1985,
70 percent of the 1,490 drug-related cases that went to trial resulted in convictions.
However, only 100 defendants received jail time of 15 days or more, and the drug
market continued to thrive.33
1. Policing the area in a highly visible fashion. The desired effect of high visibility
policing is to disrupt the drug market by increasing the risk of arrest and making it
inconvenient for sellers and buyers to exchange drugs and money. Police in New
York employed this tactic to destabilize a rampant drug market on the Lower East
Side of Manhattan. Police officers, patrolling mostly on foot, flooded the area and
established an imposing presence in the community thereby increasing the risk of
arrest for buyer and seller.34 The effect of this initiative was a reduced volume of
drug traffic and decreased property crime. In South Carolina, police found that the
presence of a uniformed officer—especially one who looked to be taking copious
notes and detailing the scene—acted to stifle the drug market.35 A visible police
presence within the neighborhood can also serve to assuage the fear of crime for
local residents. Community officers often act as a bridge between the police and the
local population36 and can help strengthen support for enforcement initiatives.
Obviously, high visibility policing is expensive and therefore difficult to sustain for
long periods. It can interrupt well-entrenched drug markets, giving other responses
designed to change the underlying conditions of the market a greater likelihood of
success.
2. Enforcing the law intensively. Research provides a mixed response to this type of
enforcement strategy. In some cases, police crackdowns or "sweeps" have been
 shown to be effective in disrupting and dispersing the drug market leading to an
increase in the number of arrests made, as well as a reduction in calls for service to
the local area.37See the POP Guide on The Benefits and Consequences of Police
Crackdowns [Full text] for further information. The effect a crackdown will have is
largely dependent on the drug market that is targeted and the amount of resources
available. A task force in Lynn, Massachusetts achieved a dramatic decrease in the
blatancy and volume of drug sales, and a reduction in property crime through a
combination of street surveillance and intelligence gathering, which included a
telephone "hotline" for local residents. In addition, there was an increase in demand
for drug treatment services and no reports of displacement to surrounding
neighborhoods.38

However, police in Melbourne, Australia found that although the crackdown had
some success in reducing the visible aspects of drug dealing, the market quickly
adapted, resulting in only a temporary improvement. Negative outcomes were also
observed such as partial displacement, public health dangers and an increase in
violence.39 It is also important to consider the response of the local community to
enforcement efforts. Tactical Narcotics Teams employed in Brooklyn, New York
found that police crackdowns were not likely to achieve any lasting improvement
unless the community became more involved in the process.40 In some cases, this
type of enforcement strategy may even exacerbate the situation. Minneapolis police
found that an infamous crack market in the city proved resistant to police tactics.
Buy-busts and executing warrants were unsuccessful and improvement only
occurred after police encouraged landlords to evict those selling drugs. 41 Police
crackdowns may even have a detrimental effect on police-community relations.
Enforcement may be perceived as being disproportionately aimed at people from
communities of color or to be overly aggressive and infringe on the civil liberties of
the local population in general.42

The success of a police crackdown will rarely be achieved or sustained in isolation

and whatever enforcement strategy is employed should be followed by a
revitalization initiative.43
3. Arresting drug sellers in "buy and bust" operations. Buy-busts (or test
purchase operations) are used to gather evidence against specific dealers leading
to their arrest. Police in Oakland found that as the operation progressed and
flagrant dealing diminished, it became more difficult to make buys. Sellers adapted
to enforcement by changing location and stashing their drugs in nearby hideouts
rather than keeping it on their person.44 In addition, dealers began to recognize
individual officers by sight. Dealers who become wary of buy-bust operations may
require that unknown buyers prove their legitimacy by either showing injection
marks or by using drugs while being observed.45 Buy-busts may also be
complicated by the organization of a market in which a variety of roles are
performed by several people, making it difficult for the police to arrest the actual
seller rather than his or her ancillary staff. Because dealers associated with open-
air drug markets tend to represent the lowest level of the dealing network, it is
 unlikely that buy-bust operations aimed specifically at street dealers will significantly
disrupt the distribution system. Sellers operating at this level are easily replaced
and while buy-bust operations may result in a large number of arrests, convictions
rarely lead to lengthy sentences.46

If buy-busts are part of your chosen strategy for tackling drug markets, it is
important to protect the identity of the officers involved—a challenge when
resources are limited. In response to this concern, the Virginia State Police
developed an undercover interagency exchange program allowing police agencies
from around the state to link personnel, investigative techniques and intelligence
information about drug dealers.47
4. Intelligence-led investigative work. Information from drug hotlines and local
residents can advance a police officer's ability to identify and analyze a problem. In
addition, arrestees can prove to be a useful source of intelligence. Police in
Brooklyn, New York suggest that any arrest can produce information if officers
debrief the offender. For example, a drug buyer may facilitate access to a location
for an undercover officer, greatly reducing the time and expense of other forms of
surveillance.48
5. Confiscating stashed drugs. Without regard for arresting dealers, if police can get
good intelligence from the community about the location of stashed drugs in hidden,
but public, locations in and around the market, they can confiscate the drugs. A
sufficient level of confiscation can create a financial hardship for dealers and may
compel them to move the market, hold the drugs (and make themselves more
vulnerable to arrest), or raise prices.

Seizing drugs that have been stashed in public places near a market can help drive out dealers and eventually close
the market. Credit: Monroe County Sheriff's Office at www.keysso.net
6. Arresting drug buyers. Arresting drug buyers in operations commonly referred to
as "reverse stings" are a controversial form of enforcement and serve to impact the
demand side of the market. They are most successfully employed against novice or
occasional users who lack experience and tend to buy from strangers. Several
critical legal issues arise in reverse stings. If officers sell simulated drugs, they
should be clear about what offense they can charge the buyer with; if they are
selling real drugs, then care must be taken to safeguard those drugs so that they
don't enter the user market. The second issue is entrapment. Reverse stings have
been heavily criticized by criminal lawyers in the past and entrapment can be used
as a defense in court. To safeguard against this, officers should receive thorough
 training in the legal aspects of the operation and be advised how to react in any
given situation. Police in Alabama used reverse stings to target users after a
change of legislation made soliciting for the purpose of purchasing drugs a felony
rather than a misdemeanor. In Miami, Florida police found that although the
penalties imposed by the courts were light, the process of being arrested, charged,
and required to appear in court as well as the possibility of having a vehicle
impounded, acted as a deterrent for buyers. They found that of the 1,725 people
that were arrested during 18 reverse sting operations, only seven were repeat
offenders. The continued use of this type of operation led to two significant
changes: the first was a lower arrest rate. The second was that those getting
arrested were predominantly problem users implying that the number of the casual
and novice users had decreased.49
7. Warning potential buyers. Police in Fort Lauderdale, Florida implemented a
scheme designed to discourage buyers in vehicles from entering the drug market
area. Police monitored vehicles seen in the vicinity of the market, traced the
registered owners of the vehicles, and mailed them a postcard warning that the
vehicle had been spotted in a high-crime area. The effect of this strategy was a
decrease in the number of drug-related arrests within the targeted neighborhood
coupled with a decrease in overall traffic volume.50
Community Responses
8. Encouraging community action. Community-led anti-drug initiatives can be an
important component in combating open-air drug markets. Where grass-roots
organizations already exist, their success is often dependent upon establishing a
good working relationship with the police. It is imperative that officers overcome any
skepticism they may have about the efficacy of such groups and provide them with
adequate support. Where no such groups exist, police can galvanize local residents
by arranging meetings, posting fliers and coordinating other forms of community
activity. Research shows that being taken seriously by the police and other public
officials increases citizen morale and their willingness to participate and there have
been many examples of successful community-led action against drug
markets.51 In Kansas City, a volunteer association known as Ad Hoc initiated anti-
drug marches and drug-house "blitzes." Members of the group also coordinated
with police and the district attorney to threaten landlords with civil forfeiture if they
failed to evict drug-dealing tenants.52 Police in Vancouver, B.C. found that local
residents willingly opened their homes for officers to use as surveillance points as
well as organizing a Park Watch volunteer foot patrol to collect information on drug
dealers operating in the area.53
9. Operating a telephone hotline. A dedicated telephone hotline for local residents is
useful for gathering intelligence and can help to build confidence in the community.
Schemes that are widely advertised are likely to elicit the greatest response and
might also serve to deter buyers and sellers by reminding them that local residents
can report criminal or nuisance behavior easily and anonymously.
 Toll-free community hotlines are a good way to gather information while protecting the anonymity of the
informant. Credit: Metropolitan Nashville Police Department

Civil Remedies
Successful responses to drug markets are invariably multi-dimensional and no single
response in isolation is likely to succeed. Research suggests that the use of civil
remedies can result in a decrease in drug dealing and signs of disorder.54 Properties
surrounding an area where open drug dealing occurs often support the market and may
also be liable for civil action. Police in Oakland, California worked with city agency
representatives to improve the physical condition of areas used for drug dealing. Tactics
included recommendations to landlords to evict troublesome tenants; inspections by
housing, sewer, sidewalk and vector control inspectors; and warnings sent to building
owners informing them that action would be taken if they did not deal with drug dealing
and disorder problems.55
10. Encouraging place managers to be more proactive. It is likely that open drug
markets will exist in areas where place managers (including landlords, housing
authorities, local business residents and tenants associations) are inadequate or
corrupted. Within targeted areas, it could be beneficial to offer assistance to those
responsible for place management to help them achieve more control over their
properties.56 Levels of intervention may vary from distributing information
pamphlets to providing financial aid or training for landlords and
businesses.57 Police can work with place managers to ensure that additional
improvements are carried out, such as better street lighting and regular garbage
collection.
11. Applying nuisance abatement laws. Nuisance abatement actions are an
important tool in controlling drug dealing in open-air markets and can be used
against properties that are shown to be fostering a drug market. These actions may
include the packaging and storing of drugs, housing dealers, or providing a place
for people to use.
12. Issuing restraining orders or "stay-away" orders. County Prosecutors in
Newark, N.J. have begun asking judges to issue Drug Offender Restraining Orders
(DOROs) against drug defendants. Similar to restraining orders in domestic
violence cases, DOROs are designed to keep accused drug offenders out of
specific neighborhoods or buildings and can be requested at a defendant's first
court appearance. The order then lasts until the defendant has been convicted or
acquitted. "Stay-away" orders can also be used in conjunction with probation to
keep convicted dealers away from a specified area.
13. Notifying mortgage holders of drug-related problems at their
properties. Police can serve as a conduit of information to entities that have a
financial stake in the proper maintenance of real property. This may lead to private
 actions to compel improvements in property management, and ultimately a
reduction in drug-related activity in and around that property.58
14. Enforcing regulatory codes. Police can instigate building and property inspections
and liaise with absentee landlords about the condition of their properties and the
activities taking place in them.59Where buildings are vacant, police can inform city
officials and encourage them to take action. In St. Louis, Missouri, two officers took
photographs of the exterior of a building that had been identified as problem
location and submitted them to the City Building Division requesting that the
buildings be inspected for code violations. In addition, they also contacted the
landlord of the property to share information about the state of the building and the
behavior of the tenants.60
15. Seizing and forfeiting assets related to drug dealing. Seizing a dealer's assets
is likely to impede on their ability to conduct business as well as deprive them of
profit accumulated through drug-related activity. In addition, seized assets provide
additional revenue and resources to fund further enforcement efforts and
community-based strategies against drugs. In addition to targeting dealers, civil
forfeiture proceedings can be used to gain ownership of buyers' vehicles. Where
transactions occurred in buyers' cars, police in Alabama were able to gain
ownership of a number of vehicles.61Police in New York worked with the Inland
Revenue Service (IRS) and passed on the registration information of cars they
suspected belonged to dealers. The IRS would then run an income tax check on
the owner and if no taxes had been paid or return filed, or if the income reported
was disproportionate to the cost of the car, an investigation ensued, resulting in the
seizure of more than 100 cars.62
Modifying the Physical Environment
This involves manipulating, designing or managing the physical environment with the
intention of affecting the behavior of those who use it.63 There are many physical
features that may facilitate drug dealing in open-air markets including: thick or
overgrown foliage, vacant buildings, poor street lighting, and access routes that can be
modified to discourage drug dealing.
16. Re-claiming public areas. Public areas that have been abandoned by members of
the local community because they fear drug-related activity are at risk of further
degradation. Where parks and other public spaces are used for drug dealing, police
can negotiate with the relevant authority responsible for an area and assist in
implementing working solutions. Police in Sweden found that re-designing a public
park to improve visibility and encourage local residents' use helped eradicate drug
activity and restore public order.64 In Vancouver, B.C. a significant increase in
reports of drug dealing resulted in a community effort to reclaim a neighborhood
park. In addition to enforcement against dealers, police coordinated with the Park
Board requesting immediate action to control graffiti and litter; the landscaping in
the park was altered to eliminate obstructed sightlines; and the dog pound stepped
up its enforcement of unleashed dogs used by dealers to intimidate residents.65
17. Installing and monitoring surveillance cameras. There is little information about
the efficacy of using surveillance cameras to disrupt open-air drug markets. The
 installation of surveillance cameras has been shown to reduce crime, although in
some cases, criminal activity adapted to circumnavigate the increased risk of
arrest.66 A study conducted in the UK asked offenders their views about CCTV and
whether they thought it could be used to combat street drug dealing. Although
respondents felt that redeployable cameras would be more effective than static
cameras, 78 percent of the offenders interviewed did not think CCTV would make
an impact.67 Introducing surveillance cameras in an open drug market is likely to
result in displacement or the transformation of an open market into a closed one;
other possible benefits include an increased feeling of safety for local residents and
a fall in street crime.
18. Altering access routes and restricting parking. Limiting the access routes into a
drug market, especially when a high number of buyers are not from the local
neighborhood, may have the effect of dampening the market. Police in Charlotte,
North Carolina blocked off two main routes into the neighborhood when analysis
revealed that 60 percent of those arrested for buying or selling drugs in the area did
not live in local vicinity—a factor that contributed to a 42 percent drop in arrest rates
during the following 12 months. See the POP Response Guide No. 2 Closing
Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime [Full text] for further information. As well as
discouraging buyers, blocking off streets and alleys can make it more difficult for
dealers to escape in the event of enforcement activity, which may render the area
less appealing as a drug market. Implementing parking restrictions may also have
an effect on the market. Buyers will have to walk to and from the drug market,
increasing the risk of police surveillance or street crime.
19. Changing public pay phones. Removing pay phones or restricting them to
outgoing calls can serve to hamper communication between buyers and sellers
making it less convenient for them to conduct business.
20. Securing vacant buildings. This can help improve the physical appearance of the
neighborhood, and reduce the number of places suitable for selling or using drugs.
With the support of the local community coalition, Houston police conducted a
sweep of abandoned buildings in the Link Valley area to look for squatters and drug
dealers. In addition, the coalition organized a clean up of the area and worked with
city agencies to enforce health and housing ordinances a combination of actions
that greatly reduced the neighborhood drug trade.68
Demand Reduction
21. Providing drug treatment. Reducing the availability of drugs cannot be done by
enforcement alone, and it is important to combine supply and demand reduction
strategies. In some cases, enforcement will lead to an increased demand for
treatment services.69 Disrupting a drug market may provide a window of
opportunity in which individuals decide to seek assistance for their use. Providing
adequate resources to treat problem drug use will ensure that this opportunity is
used effectively. In some cases appropriately targeted treatment has been found to
destabilize retail markets by stripping them of low-level staff.70
 Pages in this Guide
 The Problem of Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets
 Understanding Your Local Problem
 Responses to the Problem of Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets
 Summary of Responses
 Related POP Projects
 Print Full Guide
 Endnotes
 References
Related Guides & Publications

There are 12 related tool guide(s)

10
Items per page
Apply

 Analyzing and Responding to Repeat Offending

 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion
 Assessing Responses to Problems
 Assessing Responses to Problems: Did it Work?
 Enhancing the Problem-solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units
 Identifying and Defining Policing Problems
 Implementing Responses to Problems
 Partnering With Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems
 Researching a Problem
 Understanding Risky Facilities


 1 of 2

 next ›
 Center for Problem Oriented Policing

 Facebook
 LinkedIn
Academic Affiliations
 Arizona State University
 School of Criminology & Criminal Justice
ASU is #1 in the U.S. for Innovation
 Copyright and Trademark
 Accessibility
 Privacy
 Terms of Use
 Jobs
 Emergency
 Contact ASU
Endnotes
[1] Caulkins and Reuter (1998).
[2] Eck (1995). [
[3] Edmunds, Hough, and Urquia(1996) [Full text]; Lupton et al. (2002)[Full text];
Natarajan and Hough (2000). [Abstract Only]
[4] Goldstein (1985).
[5] Edmunds, Hough, and Urquia(1996)[Full text]; Maher and Dixon (1999). [Abstract
Only]
[6] Natarajan , Clarke, and Belanger (1996); May et al. (2000).[Full text] [Briefing Note]
[7] Kleiman and Smith (1990); Maher and Dixon (1999)[Abstract Only]; Kennedy
(1993).[Full text]
[8] Maher and Dixon (1999)[Abstract Only]; Reuter and MacCoun (1993).
[9] Weisburd and Mazerolle (2000).
[10] Wilson and Kelling (1982); Hough and Edmunds (1999).
[11] Knutsson (1997).[Full text]
[12] Ruggiero and South (1995).
[13] Eck (1995). [Abstract Only]
[14] Myhre (2000).
[15] Eck (1995). [Abstract Only]
[16] Natarajan and Hough (2000). [Abstract Only]
[17] Dorn , Murji , and South (1992).
[18] Curtis and Sviridoff (1994).
[19] Davis and Lurigio (1996).
[20] Johnson et al. (1990).
[21] Parker, Aldridge, and Measham (1998).
[22] May et al. (2000). [Full text] [Briefing Note]
[23] Office of National Drug Control Policy (2002). [Full text]
[24] Rasmussen and Benson (1994); Reuter (1992).
[25] Curtis (1996).
[26] Murji (1998).
[27] Weisburd and Mazerolle (2000).
[28] Lupton et al. (2002). [Full text]
[29] Zimmer (1990).
[30] Clarke (1997).
[31] Weisel (1996).
[32] Conner and Burns (1991).
[33] Conner and Burns (1991).
[34] Zimmer (1990).
[35] Conner and Burns (1991).
[36] May et al. (2000). [Full text] [Briefing Note]
[37] Zimmer (1990).
[38] Kleiman, Holland , and Hayes (1984).
[39] Aitken et al. (2002). [Full text]
[40] Curtis (1996).
[41] Buerger (1992). [Full text]
[42] Jacobson (1999). [Full text ]
[43] Baveja, Feichtinger, and Hartl (1999) [Full text]; Jacobson (1999). [Full text]
[44] Connors and Nugent (1990).
[45] May et al. (2000). [Full text] [Briefing Note]
[46] Conner and Burns (1991).
[47] Weisel (1996).
[48] City of New York Police Department (1993).
[49] Connors and Nugent (1990).
[50] Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (1993).
[51] Weingart, Hartmann, and Osborne (1993). [Research Brief]
[52] Weingart, Hartmann, and Osborne (1993). [Research Brief]
[53] Vancouver Police Department (2000). [Full text]
[54] Mazerolle and Roehl (1998) [Full text]; Buerger and Mazerolle (1998); Cadwalader,
Wickersham and Taft (1993).
[55] Mazerolle, Roehl, and Kadleck (1998). [Full text]
[56] Eck (1995). [Abstract Only]
[57] Bureau of Justice Assistance (2000). [Full text]
[58] Hope (1994) [Full text]; Oakland Police Department (2003). [Full text]
[59] Eck and Wartell (1998). [Full text]
[60] Hope (1994).[Full text]
[61] Uchida, Forst, and Annan (1992). [Full text]
[62] Weingart, Hartmann, and Osborne(1993). [Research Brief]
[63] Tonry and Farrington (1995).
[64] Knutsson (1997).[Full text]
[65] Vancouver Police Department (2000). [Full text]
[66] Sarno, Hough, and Bulos (1999). [Full text]
[67] Gill and Loveday (2003).
[68] Weingart, Hartmann, and Osborne (1993). [Research Brief]
[69] Kleiman, Holland, and Hayes (1984).
[70] Killias and Aebi (2000). [Full text]