Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Nuisance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill enabling courts to abate chronic nuisance properties after defined series of arrests
Summary
Lawmakers approved a proposal to create a statutory 'nuisance per se' trigger tied to repeated arrests at a property; supporters said it helps prosecutors abate chronic crime locations, while advocates urged safeguards for owners and occupiers.
A House Judiciary committee on Tuesday advanced House Bill 10-50 as amended, a measure that sets a statutory threshold for declaring a property a public nuisance when a location experiences repeated arrests for enumerated offenses.
Sponsor Representative Parkinson said the bill streamlines the process for district attorneys to seek court orders to abate chronic nuisance properties — such as businesses or rental housing linked to recurrent drug, assault, firearms or juvenile offenses — by establishing prima facie proof once a threshold of arrests is met and the owner has been notified. Under the proposed language, three or more unrelated arrests for listed offenses at a property within a designated time period would trigger notice; if a fourth qualifying event occurs, the property could be deemed a nuisance per se and subject to abatement, including temporary closure.
The committee heard from business owners and district attorney representatives. Cynthia Smalls, owner of a nearby childcare center, described shootings, drugs planted on a playground and business losses near a problematic establishment and supported statutory tools to compel property owners to address criminal activity. Mike Donovan of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference said the bill borrows elements of existing codes in other states and would give prosecutors a clearer path to seek injunctive relief and address properties with repeat incidents.
Members asked technical questions about who would be notified, liability for owners versus occupiers, whether incidents must be separate occurrences and what counts as a qualifying event. The sponsor and witnesses said notice would be served on both the property owner and the occupier, and that the proposed standard is arrest-based (not conviction‑based), intended to provide documented evidence of repeated incidents.
After testimony and questions, the committee voted to advance House Bill 10-50 as amended to calendar and rules; the clerk recorded 17 ayes, 1 no, and 2 present not voting.
