---
title: "Reducing Vehicle Burglaries"
type: "pdf"
year: "2005"
canonical: "/projects/238"
---

# Carrollton, Texas Police Department 

# Table of Contents

- [Carrollton, Texas Police Department](#carrollton-texas-police-department)
  - [Entry Submission:](#entry-submission)
  - [2005 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing](#2005-herman-goldstein-award-for-excellence-in-problem-oriented-policing)
  - [Summary:](#summary)
- [Description:](#description)
  - [- Scanning:](#scanning)
- [- Analysis:](#analysis)
- [o Response:](#o-response)
- [- Assessment:](#assessment)
- [Agency and Officer Information:](#agency-and-officer-information)
- [BUMV Locations](#bumv-locations)
  - [Jan 04 to June 04](#jan-04-to-june-04)
- [Carrollton Police Department](#carrollton-police-department)
  - [Follow these Suggestions to Help Deter Vehicle Burglaries](#follow-these-suggestions-to-help-deter-vehicle-burglaries)
  - [Items to Avoid Leaving in View](#items-to-avoid-leaving-in-view)
  - [The City of Carrollton Police Department needs your help.](#the-city-of-carrollton-police-department-needs-your-help)
  - [Harder Target](#harder-target)
    - [Carrollton Police Department](#carrollton-police-department)
  - [Follow these Suggestions to Help Deter Vehicle Burglaries](#follow-these-suggestions-to-help-deter-vehicle-burglaries)
  - [H.E.A.T. (Help End Auto Theft in Texas)](#heat-help-end-auto-theft-in-texas)
  - [What is a Vehicle Burglary?](#what-is-a-vehicle-burglary)
  - [State of Texas Penal Code: 30.04](#state-of-texas-penal-code-3004)
  - [Items to Avoid Leaving in View](#items-to-avoid-leaving-in-view)
  - [Be Aware of Burglary Methods and Locations](#be-aware-of-burglary-methods-and-locations)
  - [Entry methods:](#entry-methods)
  - [High Risk Areas:](#high-risk-areas)
- [BUMV Locations](#bumv-locations)
  - [July 04 to Sept 04](#july-04-to-sept-04)
- [BUMV Locations](#bumv-locations)
  - [Oct 04 to Dec 04](#oct-04-to-dec-04)
- [BUMV Locations](#bumv-locations)
  - [Jan 05 to May 05](#jan-05-to-may-05)

## Entry Submission:

## 2005 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing

## Summary:

The Carrollton Police Department Community Problem Oriented Policing Team: Reducing Vehicle Burglaries

The Carrollton Police Department CPOP Team, a cross section representation of all of the Patrol Division, was assembled and tasked to identify and tackle the most pervasive crime and quality of life issues facing the Police Department and the approximate 116,500 residents it serves. The team quickly identified vehicle burglaries as a problem that was causing concern amongst the citizens and devouring police resources.

- Scanning:

The officers were all too familiar with vehicle burglaries, anecdotally recognizing that vehicle burglaries were increasing at an uncontrolled rate. When asked by vehicle burglary victims what was being done to thwart the crimes, the officers were armed with limited response. Officers were equally frustrated that none of the enforcement-based initiatives were impacting the problem.

- Analysis:

The CPOP Team used in-depth analysis to examine every angle of the problem. The officers confirmed that vehicle burglaries were increasing at an alarming rate, creating huge monetary losses to the citizens, and costing Patrol a huge number of officer hours. The officers approached the problem by researching all three sides of the "crime triangle" (offender, location, victim). The officers discovered that offenses were occurring in concentrated areas of the city. More importantly, it was discovered that the root cause of the vehicle burglaries, as well as the factor that could be most effected, was that citizens were not preventing themselves from becoming victims of vehicle burglaries.

- Response:

The officers focused on the victim and the location. They used varying techniques to communicate a burglary prevention message to vehicle owners:

- Strategically placed roadside reader-boards to gain attention
- Vehicle "report-cards" to remind vehicle owners to secure their property, or congratulating those who do
- Door to door contacts and delivery of tri-fold pamphlets, giving vehicle safety tips and reminders

The officers also addressed environmental factors to make locations less desirable to vehicle burglars.

- Analysis:

The CPOP Team studied the effectiveness of their efforts by examining the hardest hit target area:

- Number of vehicle burglaries prior to implementation
- Number of burglaries after implementation (short and long term)
- Losses sustained by victims
- Officer hours used investigating burglaries

When these were compared to previous numbers, the resulting reductions were astounding. The problem was not displaced as all of the responses had a citywide positive impact.

# Description: 

## - Scanning:

The officers of the Carrollton, Texas Police Department Community Problem Oriented Policing Team are a group of ten Patrol officers, representative of each of their shifts, tasked with using the SARA model to identify substantive community and implementing creative responses that have lasting results. They are a cross-section of the 68 officers of the entire Patrol Division.

The CPOP team initially held meetings in an effort to identify problems upon which they could focus that would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of life in the City of Carrollton. The officers discussed some of the common problems faced by police departments, including known drug locations, repeat offenders, and areas that were experiencing repeat felony offenses such as robberies.

During these discussions officers also identified vehicle burglaries as a problem that was greatly impacting both the citizens and the officers of the department. Although the officers realized that many of the other problems were important to address, the constant rise of vehicle burglaries was taxing police resources. Taking multiple vehicle burglary reports was becoming an everyday routine for patrol officers.

The officers recognized the vehicle burglaries, a misdemeanor in Texas, had impact upon both community expectations of safety as well as the department's resources. The dayshift officers were weary of repeatedly taking vehicle burglary reports, which were using valuable time that could be spent solving more substantive community problems.

The nightshift officers were equally frustrated, spending hours searching for suspects and potential offenders, but rarely making arrests on "fresh" offenses.

The officers reasoned that if they could significantly reduce vehicle burglaries, the department's resources, especially the Patrol Division, could be used to address the other quality of life problems occurring in each officer's beat.

Although it was the 10 officers of the CPOP Team who identified vehicle burglaries as the most important problem to focus efforts upon, the supervisors and management of the department concurred. In fact, a primary "Strategic Operational Goal" of the Police Department is to reduce the incidence of property crime.

Vehicle burglaries were also a community concern. The sheer number of vehicle burglaries and the fact that less than $5 \%$ of vehicle burglaries were cleared by detectives created concerned citizens in the areas hardest hit. Officers routinely were confronted by victims of vehicle burglary, asking, "What are you guys doing about this?" The victims would often equate the vehicle burglary to a decay of the neighborhood or the city itself.

The officers' preliminary analysis was based upon discussion of problem areas in the cities. The officers had opinions of where the problem areas were, which led to the necessity of more analysis.

# - Analysis: 

The officers of the CPOP Team recognized that their preliminary analysis was based on anecdotal information, and more research was required to better understand the problem.

The CPOP Team first needed to verify that vehicle burglaries were actually increasing and occurring frequently enough to warrant the team's primary attention. The officers understood that vehicle burglaries have always been a problem in the city, but they wanted to utilize data to identify trends, patterns, and effects on both the police and the citizens. They utilized the crime analysis tools available through the Planning and Research Section to accomplish this.

The years 2000 through 2003 were analyzed to provide a four-year examination of the problem. The research indicated:

- During the year 2000, 939 vehicle burglaries in Carrollton
- 785 officer hours were spent investigating and taking the reports
- $\$ 620,876$ damages and losses sustained by victims
- During 2001, 1132 vehicle burglaries, 20.6\% increase from 2000
- 889 officer hours
- $\$ 1,032,058$ damages and losses

- During 2002, 1347 vehicle burglaries, another 19\% increase from 2001
- 946 officer hours
- $\$ 915,039$ damages and losses
- During 2003, 1543 vehicle burglaries, another 14.6 \% increase from 2002
- Over 984 officer hours
- Approximately \$1,269,221 damages and losses

The impact upon the department was great, especially since the "officer hours spent" only includes patrol officer time and does not account for time spent by detectives, supervisors, data entry clerks, etc. The monetary cost of damages and losses to the citizens of Carrollton during 2003 exceeded $\$ 1.2$ million dollars, an all-time high.

Most importantly, vehicle burglaries were increasing at an enormous rate, uncontrolled by current initiatives, deployments, and programs. Vehicle burglaries had increased by over $64 \%$ from 2000 to 2003. Prior to 2000, the percentage increase in vehicle burglaries was always single digit and never as dramatic as in 2000-2003. It was a problem that had significantly grown with the turn of the millennium.

The data analysis showed vehicle burglaries were causing numerous harms. The citizens were experiencing an ever-increasing amount of monetary losses. In addition to the tangible monetary losses, a consistent increase in vehicle burglaries was likely to lead to a perception that the primarily residential community was becoming unsafe. Because vehicle burglaries are often difficult to solve, the sheer numbers were also undermining confidence in the Criminal Investigation Division.

The research also confirmed the officers' suspicions that the increasing number of vehicle burglaries was consuming beat officers' time, minimizing the time that could be spent on resolving beat-level problems.

The CPOP Team utilized the "crime triangle" (offender, location, and victim) in an effort to better understand the underlying causes of the large increase in vehicle burglaries.

The officers consulted with the Criminal Investigations Division and discovered that little was known about the offenders:

- Most offenders who had been arrested were young (under 25 years old)
- Most offenders were believed to be of school age as burglaries spiked when local schools were not in session
- Most burglars committed offenses during the nighttime
- Offenders used varying methods to break into the cars, but each offender usually used one consistent method
- The offender commits the offense for personal gain, either using or selling the items stolen from the vehicle

The analysis of the offender led the officers to believe that a response tailored to address the offender side of the triangle would be difficult to formulate and implement. Past initiatives (surveillance deployments, "plain car" operations, and other enforcement-type responses) had focused on the offender and the data clearly showed this had little or no effect on the rising number of vehicle burglaries.

The officers used a combination of crime-data analysis and an examination of the environment in which the offenses were occurring to better understand the "location" side of the crime triangle. First, it was clear that vehicle burglaries were a massive problem for not only the ten officers of the CPOP Team to address, but also for all of Patrol. The officers believed that although vehicle burglaries did occur citywide, there were small areas in the city that were harder hit than others. The team decided to identify these areas through crime-data analysis and attempt to cater the responses to these specific locations. The impact on a smaller area would be measurable and would indicate which response initiatives should be utilized citywide and which were ineffective in reducing the burglaries.

The map-based crime analysis was completed very carefully as burglary maps can be skewed by "sprees" in one specific area that all occurred over a short period of time. However, it was also recognized that any response, regardless of whether addressing the offender, location, or victim, would be most effective in an area where offenders were actively committing burglaries. The location would have to be selected based upon a careful balance of both.

The department's Planning and Research Section created vehicle burglary density maps. The maps showed areas that, in relation to the surrounding areas, experienced more vehicle burglaries than others. The officers wanted to identify areas that had both a longterm history of being burglarized as well as being burglarized consistently over the last few months.

Two maps of the entire city were initially generated:

- "Hot Spot BUMV" June 2001 - June 2004 (to examine long-term, four year trends) (See Exhibit \#1)
- "Hot Spot BUMV" January 2004 - June 2004 (to examine recent, six month trends) (See Exhibit \#2)

A target area of approximately 2 square miles in Beat 344 showed to be the most consistently burglarized on both maps. This meant that area had experienced a high level of offenses during the last three years and was probably being actively "worked" by vehicle burglars during the last six months.

Two additional density maps were generated, both of Beat 344, with the same time periods to show an enlargement of this suspected problem area (See Exhibit \#3 and \#4). The officers identified a small area that included approximately 14 streets that had been

consistently burglarized over the last four years as well as recently burglarized. The officers utilized a pin-map of the specific target area to show the high frequency of burglaries over the last six month period (See Exhibit \#5). Responses were to be first initiated in this hardest hit area.

Finally, the officers examined the "victim" side of the triangle and the following was noted about victims of vehicle burglaries:

- The victim owns or drives a vehicle
- The vehicle is parked in a location accessible to a potential suspect(s)
- Some type of property is left in the vehicle while parked and unattended
- In many cases, the victim does not lock the vehicle doors or leaves the vehicle windows rolled down
- In most cases, the victim can only give a wide time gap in which the offense occurred (usually six to eight hours) making it difficult to determine exactly when suspects were in the area

The officers were armed with the knowledge of the victim and environment, and some limited knowledge of the offender. They decided, based upon the analysis, to focus efforts upon the location and victim sides of the triangle. Past efforts that had focused on the offenders were both costly and ineffective. Officers knew if offenders were caught, there were numerous other offenders who would return to the area due to Carrollton's proximity to major metropolitan areas.

The officers analyzed the vehicle burglary into a sequence:

- Victim parks his/her car in a outside, accessible location
- Victim leaves the vehicle, often unsecured
- Victim leaves property of value in the vehicle, unsecured and in plain-view
- Offender enters the area, looking into vehicles
- Offender sees the property and enters the vehicle, either through the unlocked door or by forcing entry
- Offender flees the area, usually un-apprehended by police
- Victim discovers the vehicle had been burglarized and reports the offense
- Patrol officer responds, searches for physical evidence, and documents in a report
- Detective examines the report, following-up on the rare instances in which physical evidence or a suspect description exists

Little could be done to improve the police response portion. The officers realized that the analysis clearly showed that if the victim would secure their vehicle (lock doors, roll-up windows, utilize garages) and secure their property (take the property inside their home/business or at least hide the property) the vehicle burglary would never occur, even if offenders were entering the area and attempting to commit burglaries. If the problem was stopped earlier in the chain of events, then the citizens would not experience losses and police resources would not have to be expended.

# o Response: 

The officers of the CPOP Team took this valuable analysis background information back to their respective shifts and supervisors to brainstorm responses. Although the team could have generated their own, they knew the 68 officers of the Patrol Division would have many creative ideas.

During their next meeting, the focus was on finding a response that was creative, that would attack the victim and location sides of the crime triangle, and would be sustainable at a minimum amount of cost to the Police Department.

The officers agreed that multi-faceted communication with vehicle owners in the target area, with a focus on preventative efforts and hardening the target, was a response that was creative and sustainable with a small impact on police resources. The officers noted that just one or two methods of communication with the potential victims would have limited success, so the response would have to be carefully tailored to approach the problem from a number of different angles.

The first step was massive communication intended to grab the citizens' attention regarding vehicle burglaries. Officers were aware the City of Carrollton owned several large roadside reader boards that could be programmed to display any message. Officers coordinated with City of Carrollton Signals Department and arranged for several of these boards to be placed along major and secondary roadways that led to and from the target area. The boards displayed, "Vehicle Burglaries Rising, Don’t Be a Victim, Secure All Valuables." The boards generated immediate Dallas area media attention and numerous citizens called the Police Department to obtain more information. This massive communication tool was the first step to help the citizens of the target area understand that they played a role in reducing vehicle burglaries.

The reader boards set the stage for a more personal level of communication with the citizens in the target areas. One of the CPOP officers was familiar with a program that another Dallas area police department was utilizing to combat vehicle burglaries. This department was using a "report card" that was left on vehicles which were easy targets. Unfortunately, the department using the cards was not realizing much success. However, the officers of the CPOP team decided the program could be tailored to fit Carrollton and was worthy of attempt.

The officers created a Carrollton-specific vehicle burglary report card (See Exhibit \#6). Officers examined every parked vehicle in the target area to determine if it was an easy target for a vehicle burglar. If the vehicle was unlocked, windows down, or valuables in plain view the officer would secure the vehicle and leave a card inside. The card was marked by the officer to note exactly why the vehicle was an easy target, even listing out the type of valuables that are commonly stolen by vehicle burglars. If the vehicle was a "harder target" a card was also left, giving the citizen a "thank you" for partnering with the police department. Although the "failing" cards alerted citizens to a problem, the "passing" cards helped to remind the citizen to maintain a high level of awareness. The

cards also included a lengthy list of suggestions which would help deter vehicle burglaries, such as what items to avoid leaving in view.

During a one-week period officers examined and left cards on over 600 vehicles within the target area. The officers kept a meticulous count of the cards, recording the number of passing vehicles and failing vehicles. It was discovered that the citizens were doing a poor job of protecting their vehicles and property, with $55 \%$ of the vehicles being evaluated as easy targets. This percentage of easy targets led the officers to believe that much more needed to be done to communicate to the citizens the role they could play in reducing or eliminating the problem.

The officers decided to implement additional techniques focused on citizen awareness and then re-evaluate their effectiveness by canvassing the area again with report cards. The reader boards and report cards were mass communication tools. The next step was to communicate on a more personal level.

The officers created a tri-fold pamphlet that went more into depth concerning vehicle burglaries. The pamphlet included the number of offenses, the cost to citizens, and many different techniques that citizens could use to make themselves and their vehicles harder targets (See Exhibit \#7). Officers used the pamphlets to communicate with the citizens directly, walking from house to house in the target area. The officers attempted to make personal contact when possible, explaining to the residents the vehicle burglary initiative and discussing crime awareness tips the citizen could use to harden the target. If the resident was not home, the pamphlet was left on their door. The personal contact helped officers to measure the effectiveness of their activities.

The officers also implemented responses designed to address the environment of the target area. Officers canvassed the neighborhood during the nighttime, mapping areas that were dark and/or overgrown with vegetation, leading to a more susceptible vehicle burglary target. Officers worked in conjunction with city code enforcement, holding citizens, utility companies, and the city itself accountable to cut back trees and fix lighting to make the area generally safer.

After the target area was canvassed with tri-fold pamphlets and most of the environmental problems had been addressed, the officers again canvassed the target area with report cards (approximately six weeks after the first wave of report cards). Again they evaluated over 600 vehicles. This time, however, the citizens were paying much closer attention to their vehicles and their property, with a failure rate of $28 \%$. The officers' initiatives clearly had some impact in reminding citizens to protect their property, reducing the number of easy targets by $27 \%$.

During the deployment in the target area, the officers of the CPOP team were conscious of potential displacement problems. Moving the problem area from one beat to another would not be acceptable. To combat displacement, the officers of the CPOP team worked with each of their shifts to implement these responses on a smaller scale within each beat. Although this was not done in the massive manner as done in the target area, it

did work to ensure that vehicle burglars were not displaced to another area in the city. The goal was to have every officer of the Patrol Division working in a preventative manner to reduce vehicle burglaries.

These responses were all accomplished at a minimal cost to the Police Department. The reader boards were owned by the city and deployed at little or no cost. The report cards and tri-folds were deployed by on-duty personnel during low call-load periods and had no effect upon the overall productivity of the Patrol Division. The only financial cost to the department was printing charges, easily absorbed by the budget.

The officers of both the CPOP team as well as the entire department faced some challenges when implementing their initiatives. First, although the officers of the CPOP team believed that a preventative approach would lead to success, there were some officers who viewed partnering with the citizens as "soft" policing. This small handful of officers believed patrol should be conducting surveillance, enforcement and other means of traditional policing. Nearly all of these officers, however, were met with supervisory resolve as well as encouragement from their representative peers on the CPOP team.

The officers of the CPOP team also encountered occasional resistance from other city department managers who were not prepared for initiatives that began from line-level officers. Officers of the CPOP team themselves arranged for resources, not their supervisors. Occasionally when the officers attempted to tap the resources, some managers were offended that proper "protocol" was not followed. This hurdle was overcome by supervisors and managers of the CPOP officers stepping in and brokering the resources on behalf of the officers, and in some cases, the officers using alternative sources in the private sector.

# - Assessment: 

It was during May and June of 2004 the CPOP group began meeting and planning their initiatives. A crime analysis of the 2 square mile target area showed that 35 vehicle burglaries had been reported between January and June 2004 (Again, see Exhibit \#5, Note: Some of the burglaries were at repeat locations, thus not all 35 icons appear on the map).

The officers waited until all deployments had been completed, including two waves of vehicle "report cards" and two waves of the door-to-door pamphlets, before evaluating their efforts. The first deployment of report cards, pamphlets, and reader boards occurred in July 2004. The second wave was during late August and early September 2004.

Since the initiatives were first applied in July 2004, the officers used the three-month period from July through September 2004 to initially assess the effectiveness of the vehicle burglary awareness campaign. When the data was returned from Planning and Research the officers were astonished. During the three-month evaluation period only three vehicle burglaries occurred in the target area. (See Exhibit \#8, Note: There are

four burglary icons on the map, but one of these was a Carrollton Police Department bait vehicle that was unlocked and had a high-value item left in plain view.)

Continued evaluation of the target area indicated that the citizens were continuing to secure their vehicles and valuables as a result of the department's burglary awareness campaign. During the next three months, October through December 2004, only one vehicle burglary was reported in the target area (See Exhibit \#9). In fact, from January 2005 through May 2005, only three additional vehicle burglaries were reported in the target area (See Exhibit \#10). Thus, from July 2004 through May 2005, only seven vehicle burglaries were reported in the target area. Density maps also show the significant reduction in the target area (See Exhibits \#11 and \#12).

The reduction in vehicle burglaries in the target area well exceeded the officers' expectations. Before the burglary awareness issue campaign began the neighborhood experienced approximately 5.8 vehicle burglaries per month. Since the campaign was implemented and sustained, the neighborhood only experienced 0.64 vehicle burglaries per month.

These results clearly indicate the initiatives of the officers worked. The officers focused upon clear and honest communication with the citizens of the target area. The citizens realized the officers and the Police Department were sincere since the time was taken to evaluate each and every vehicle and to make contact with each and every resident in the area. The citizens were not being burglarized and thus felt safer in their community and the officers now had time to focus on more substantive crime and quality of life issues.

The officers of the Patrol Division did not declare victory on vehicle burglaries, as there were other hard hit areas of the city. Similar campaigns were amassed in those areas of the city. Additionally, every beat officer continued (and still continues) to tailor the responses to his/her beat.

Although not all areas of the City of Carrollton showed the incredibly significant reduction in vehicle burglaries as the initial target area, the success was felt citywide. Again, since the year 2000, vehicle burglaries consistently increased in the City of Carrollton between 14 to $20 \%$ annually. Although the CPOP team's initiatives were only implemented in July 2004, during 2004 vehicle burglaries were reduced by 13.4 \% from 2003. Although $13.4 \%$ is an excellent reduction, it is especially significant since vehicle burglaries had steadily increased for the last five years. January 2005 through May 2005 indicate that at a minimum, vehicle burglaries are maintaining at a static rate. Most importantly, the citywide reduction in vehicle burglaries indicated the problem was not displaced from one area to another within the city.

The financial impact of lost and damaged property to vehicle owners was also reduced. During 2003 vehicle owners sustained $\$ 1.27$ million dollars of losses. During 2004 losses were reduced to $\$ 978,140$, an approximate $23 \%$ reduction of losses and damages. Additionally, the objective of the officers to use problem solving to free up their time to focus on more substantive issues than vehicle burglaries was accomplished. The amount

of officer time spent on vehicle burglaries was reduced by $10 \%$, especially significant as vehicle burglaries are the ninth highest time consuming activity of all of Patrol.

With a significant reduction of vehicle burglaries, the officers of the Patrol Division now have more time to work on problems in their beats. With this added time, the support of the department's leadership, and the support of the officers of the CPOP team, beat level problem identification and problem solving has flourished in the Patrol Division. More officers are working on more community problems than ever before.

# Agency and Officer Information: 

The principles of community policing were first integrated into the Carrollton Police Department in the mid 1990's. Chief David James initiated specific Community Problem Oriented Policing training for all personnel, and all newly hired employees receive training. The leadership of Carrollton PD recognized that training is only a beginning. All employees, civilians and sworn, are expected to approach their tasks, objectives, and obstacles from a community policing standpoint.

The most prominent demonstration of the integration of community policing at Carrollton PD is in the Patrol Division. Approximately 75 Officers and 11 Sergeants are expected to conduct their business with accountability for what is best for the department and the community which it serves. The officers of Carrollton PD serve a diverse community, and officers must recognize that programs, responses, and relationships must be unique to the community segment that is being served.

Carrollton Officers and Sergeants are always encouraged to make the community a partner in solving quality of life issues. Although many calls for service are not policerelated, officers are expected to make the appropriate referrals to the agency that is responsible. Numerous channels exist for communication between officers and citizens, including website, community engagements, and officers assigned to homeowner associations, apartment complexes, and crime watch groups.

During early 2004 Assistant Chief Mac Tristan was assigned to the Operations Bureau, which included the Patrol Division. Tristan and his supervisory team recognized that because of the Patrol Division's 12-hour shift structure, communication between shifts could be improved. More importantly, however, community problem oriented policing efforts needed to be better coordinated between shifts to ensure that officers were focusing upon substantive community problems.

To enhance the level of officer-based problem solving in the community, a volunteer team of officers was assembled. The initial 10 officers were representatives of each of their shifts. The team was assembled to identify community problems that could be addressed by the Carrollton Police Department and to coordinate the problem solving

efforts of all of the Patrol Division. Tristan gave the team broad guidelines for their problem solving efforts:

Is it ethical?
Is it legal?
Is it the right thing for the community?
Is it the right thing for the Carrollton Police Department?
Is it within our policies and values?
Is it something you can take responsibility for and be proud of?
If the team's answer to all of these questions is "yes," then plan the implementation and do it!

Sergeants and Lieutenants of the Patrol Division were part of the team, but their role was to support the team, provide resources, and break down any barriers to success. The supervisors provided support and assistance. The officers, who are the closest Police Department employees to the neighborhoods and businesses, are in prime position to identify the true problems, identify community resources and support, and to find sustainable solutions. These officers became known as the CPOP Team.

Although the CPOP Team was initially organized by the management, the officers of the CPOP Team needed little or no instruction. Their past training in problem oriented policing prepared them to take on challenges such as the vehicle burglary problem. The officers immediately used the SARA model training they had received. The initiative, especially the selection of the problem itself, was led by the officers.

It is again important to note that the CPOP Team is not a specialized unit within Carrollton PD. It is merely a representative system in which the 68 officers can communicate and coordinate problem solving efforts with their peers across shift, sector, and beat lines. Although all Patrol officers are welcome to attend meetings, most choose to relay information and requests through their representative officer. When the CPOP Team is made aware of a problem, initiative, or response by an officer or shift, the team's role is to provide support, resources, and to spread the information across all shifts. The CPOP Team does not assume control or "approve" the project.

There are no special incentives at the Carrollton Police Department to engage in problem solving; it is an expectation. Much of the officer and sergeant evaluation focuses upon problem solving activities. Demonstrated problem solving abilities are expected from personnel who wish to promote. Officers are always expected to identify quality of life problems in their beats, engage the community in finding a solution, and resolving the problem. Other officers learn from their peers through assessment, often applying successful solutions to their beats. Some officer projects are on a small level (frequent call locations, repeat alarm locations, etc.), while others have chosen to tackle major problem locations that require coordination with other police agencies, city officials, and even state and local level organizations.

The officers of the CPOP Team were not given financial limitations. They were challenged to find a solution that was sustainable for the long term. Deploying surveillance officers and apprehension teams into problem neighborhoods might have prevented burglaries for the time they were actually there, but the department would not have been able to sustain that costly response. The CPOP Team's response utilized existing City of Carrollton resources. The cost of the report cards and tri-fold pamphlets were minimal (one wave of 600 report cards cost approximately \$75). When compared to the resulting reduction of vehicle burglaries, the reduction of losses sustained by vehicle owners, and the saved officer time, the effort was worth every dollar.

Hot Spot of BUMV Jun 01 to Jun 04
![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-0.jpeg)

Hot Spot of BUMV
Jan 04 to June 04
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-1.jpeg)

Hot Spot of BUMV Jun 01 to Jun 04
![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-2.jpeg)

Hot Spot of BUMV Jan 04 to June 04
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-3.jpeg)

# BUMV Locations
## Jan 04 to June 04

![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-4.jpeg)

Produced by Planning and Research
06/20/05

Legend
- **NATURE**: BUMV-BURGLARY OF MOTOR VEHICLE

# Carrollton Police Department

## Follow these Suggestions to Help Deter Vehicle Burglaries

- Use your garage
- Lock your car / take keys out
- Park in well-lit area
- Completely close car windows
- Don't leave valuables in plain view (remove valuables at night; place in trunk during the day if items must be left in vehicle)
- Lock garage door and vehicle inside
- Engrave expensive accessories
- Use tire/wheel locks
- Install an audible alarm
- Take out removable radios and face plates
- Avoid parking between large vehicles (they provide cover for thieves)

## Items to Avoid Leaving in View

- *Phones*
- *Pagers*
- *CD's*
- *Purses*
- *Briefcases*
- *Wallets*
- *Credit cards*
- *Weapons*
- *Clothing*
- *Radar detectors*
- *Money (loose change)*
- *Sports equipment (golf and baseball bags)*
- *Laptop computers*
- *Removable radios (including removable face plates for radios)*

## The City of Carrollton Police Department needs your help.

In 2003 there were 1,543 reported vehicle burglaries in Carrollton. Partner with us to reduce auto burglaries.

Make your vehicle a harder target!

While on patrol, Officer # observed this vehicle as a(n):

- [ ] Easy Target Due to: _valuables in plain view_ (60015) unlocked keys left in vehicle window open garage door opener other

## Harder Target

Thank You. You have made your vehicle less desirable and/or a harder target for would be burglars.

Partners

- On the
- Look-out
- Intent on
- Crime
- Eradication

For questions or comments please call (972)466-4333

![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-5.jpeg)

The information in this pamphlet lists some of the common items, methods, and locations of vehicle burglaries. You may be a potential victim if you often leave valuable items in your vehicle or park in high-risk areas. Reduce your chance of being a victim of vehicle burglary—become familiar with this information, and practice the behavior found on the deterrents list.

### Carrollton Police Department

![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-6.jpeg)

#### VEHICLE BURGLARIES

For more information, please contact the Carrollton Police Department Crime Prevention Unit (972)466-3330

## Follow these Suggestions to Help Deter Vehicle Burglaries

Take keys out
Lock your car
Park in well-lit areas
Park in attended lots
Leave only ignition/door key with lot attendant
Completely close car windows when parking
Don't leave valuables in plain view (remove valuables at night; place in trunk during the day if items must be left in vehicle)
Use your garage
Lock garage door and vehicle inside
Replace T-shaped door locks with straight locks
Engrave expensive accessories a
Use tire/wheel locks
Install an audible alarm
Take out removable radios and face plates
Avoid parking between large vehicles (they provide cover)
Do not approach your vehicle when a stranger is near it; call 9-1-1 or security for escort.

## H.E.A.T. (Help End Auto Theft in Texas)

Texas is the first state to implement a program where vehicle owners sign an agreement allowing Police officers to verify ownership if the vehicle is observed during the HEAT hours of 1 a.m.-5 a.m.

## What is a Vehicle Burglary?

## State of Texas Penal Code: 30.04

A. A persons commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.
B. For the purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude.

1. Any part of the body; or
2. Any physical object connected with the body.
3. An offense under this section is a Class A Misdemeanor

## Items to Avoid Leaving in View

|  Phones | Clothing  |
| --- | --- |
|  Pagers | Laptop computers  |
|  Cigarettes | Weapons  |
|  Money (loose change) | Cassette tapes  |
|  CD's | Address books  |
|  Briefcases | Credit cards  |
|  Purses | Console visors  |
|  Wallets |   |
|  Radar detectors |   |
|  Sports equipment(golf and baseball bags) |   |
|  Removable radios (including removable face |   |
|  plates for radios) |   |

## Be Aware of Burglary Methods and Locations

## Entry methods:

Break glass Left unlocked Pried/Jimmied Windows rolled down or half-rolled down Window vents Sliding windows (mainly trucks) Sunroofs Convertibles Most common Points of Entry: $\square$ Side and rear window $\square$ Side door

## High Risk Areas:

Apartments Single family residences Auto parts/dealers/repair shops Shopping centers Restaurants Parks Bars Suspicious Actions: Pulling door handles Looking in windows Odd clothing for the time for the year( e.g., long coats or gloves being worn in the summer) Lookouts Nervous looking (looking all around, moving slowly or quickly) Checking for alarms by bumping or hitting the window or bumpers for sensitivity.

# BUMV Locations

## July 04 to Sept 04

![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-7.jpeg)

**Legend**

- **NATURE**
- **BUMV-BURGLARY OF MOTOR VEHICLE**

# BUMV Locations
## Oct 04 to Dec 04

![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-8.jpeg)

Produced by Planning and Research
06/20/05

Legend
- **NATURE**: BUMV-BURGLARY OF MOTOR VEHICLE

# BUMV Locations
## Jan 05 to May 05

![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-9.jpeg)

Produced by Planning and Research
06/20/05

Legend
- **NATURE**: BUMV-BURGLARY OF MOTOR VEHICLE

Hot Spot of BUMV July 04 to Dec 04
![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-10.jpeg)

Hot Spot of BUMV Jan 05 to May 05
![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-11.jpeg)

![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-12.jpeg)

David N. James
Chief of Police

July 1, 2005

Rob T. Guerette
School of Policy and Management
University Park, PCA 366B
Florida International University
11200 S.W. 8th Street
Miami, FL 33199

Dear Mr. Guerette:

Please accept the attached documents as official entry into the 2005 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing. I understand that by making this submission the Carrollton Police Department allows the information to be published on the POP Center website. I also understand that should the project be selected as one of twelve during the initial screening, the Carrollton Police Department will undertake presenting the project at the 2005 Problem Oriented Policing Conference.

Please note the following contact personnel should there be any questions regarding this submission:

**Primary Contact:**
- Mac Tristan, Assistant Chief of Police
  2025 E. Jackson Road
  Carrollton, TX 75006
  972-466-3290
  Fax: 972-466-3522
  Mac.Tristan@cityofcarrollton.com

**Secondary Contact:**
- Matthew Kosec, Lieutenant
  2025 E. Jackson Road
  Carrollton, TX 75006
  972-466-3532
  Fax: 972-466-3522
  Matthew.Kosec@cityofcarrollton.com

Sincerely,

David N. James
Chief of Police

![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-03%28F%29/img-13.jpeg)