Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › LEGAL › NUISANCES › Drug Nuisances
Updated 05/08

Drug Nuisances

Contents

Statutes

Injunctions

Drugs, from a personal or criminal law perspective, are frequently more than a nuisance: the abuse of illegal drugs can destroy lives and families. In the neighborhood context, however, illegal drug use can have many of the same impacts as other nuisances. Housing values can be lessened and the quality of life in the area can go downhill, particularly for those who want to live in a peaceful environment that is safe for children.

The state legislature adopted drug nuisance laws, Chapter 7.43 RCW, in 1988. These laws provide cities and counties with powerful tools to combat illegal drug activity by authorizing civil actions in superior court to close buildings or units in buildings that are being used in connection with the sale of illegal drugs. The statutes provide that the court must, upon finding that a drug nuisance exists, order that the building or unit within the building be closed for a period of one year (RCW 7.43.080 and .090). A drug nuisance is defined by RCW 7.43.010 as follows:

    (1) Every building or unit within a building used for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, delivering, selling, storing, or giving away any controlled substance as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, legend drug as defined in chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.52 RCW, and every building or unit within a building wherein or upon which such acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, whether it is a public or private nuisance.
    (2) As used in this chapter, "building" includes, but is not limited to, any structure or any separate part or portion thereof, whether permanent or not, or the ground itself.

Any property where a drug nuisance exists may be subject to abatement under Chapter 7.43 RCW, including apartment buildings, motels, hotels, taverns, stores, and private residences. If a pervasive drug nuisance problem is demonstrated, the courts do not hesitate to utilize the full force of the statute. However, if the level of drug related criminal activity is not "overwhelming," or if the evidence shows that the building owner has been taking reasonable efforts to deal with the problems, the courts can allow a building or apartment to remain occupied. This is especially true in situations involving apartment complexes where innocent tenants may be displaced during a closure, and in situations involving hotels or motels operated by businessmen and women as their sole source of income.

In order to expedite the abatement of drug-related building nuisances, the legislature gave these civil actions priority over most other civil proceedings (RCW 7.43.050). The threat of speedy abatement has made it relatively easy for city enforcement officials to get the attention and cooperation of apartment building owners. Because Chapter 7.43 RCW provides full authority to file drug nuisance enforcement actions in superior court, cities and counties do not need to pass any local ordinances before using the state statutory authority to commence an enforcement action.

Sample Ordinance Provisions

Programs

Further Reading

  • Clandestine Drug Labs ( 222 KB), by Michael Scott,  Problem Oriented Guides for  Police Series, Guide No. 16, Office of Community Oriented Policing, National Institute of Justice, March 2002
  • DOH Clandestine Drub Lab Program Resources and Publications
  • King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project
    • Drug Policy Project Reports
  • Papers from Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys Available through MRSC Library Loan
    • The Big Book of Nuisance Abatement, by William Cameron, City Attorney of Kennewick; Gary McLean, City Attorney of Des Moines; and Robert Noe, City Attorney of Tukwila. Information Bulletin No. 503 (1999), Legal Notes, Proceedings of April 28-30, 1998 pp. 15-1 - 15-97
    • Drug Abatement: The Seattle Experience under the 1988 Nuisance Abatement Amendments, by Sandra M. Watson, Assistant City Attorney of Seattle. Information Bulletin No. 454 (1988), Legal Notes, Proceedings of June 30-July 1, 1988, pp. 19-56.
    • Loitering for the Purpose of Engaging in Drug-Related Activity - An Answer to Society's "Why Don't They ...?", by Robert I. Bounds, Yakima City Prosecutor. Information Bulletin No. 458 (1989), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 26-28, 1988, pp. 34-46 .
    • Nuisance Abatement - Seattle Style: Drug Abatement, Tavern Closures, by Shelley Hickey, Seattle City Attorney's Office. Information Bulletin No. 499 (1997), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 8-10, 1997, pp. 3-1 - 1-13.
    • Update on Civil Drug Enforcement, by Sandra M. Watson, Assistant City Attorney of Seattle. Information Bulletin No. 462 (1989), Legal Notes, Proceedings of June 15-16, 1989, pp. 79-83.
    • Prostitutes, Winos, Druggies, Thieves and Other Public Nuisances: Procedures for Their Control and Abatement by Place and Area Access Restrictions, by Greg A. Rubstello, City Attorney of Pasco. Information Bulletin No. 451 (1988), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 22-24, 1987, pp. 92-102.