Judicial Behavior And The War On Drugs In The Dutch Real Estate Sector A quantitative analysis of Dutch litigation regarding drug-related closures Michelle Bruijn l.m.bruijn@rug.nl

Overview Dutch drug policy Research questions Methodology Results Discussion and conclusion

Homebased cannabis growers Problems Illegal production Organized crime Homebased cannabis growers Stashes

Article 13b Opium Act Closure power mayor: Sold Delivered Supplied Present for one of these purposes

Research questions 1. Which drug-related activities are determinative in the mayor’s decision to close down a premises? 2. What are the characteristics of the cases brought before court? 3. Which factors determine the success of the interested party (e.g. owner, shopkeeper or tenant) in his or her appeal against the lock-down of a premises?

Quantitative analysis Methodology Quantitative analysis www.rechtspraak.nl; fixed research terms Homes November 2007 – December 2014 65 court decisions Coffeeshops January 2010 – August 2015 31 court decisions Other (public) premises 57 court decisions Fisher exact test p<0.05

Results - Reasons for closure AHOJGI-criteria: A) No advertisement H) No hard drugs 0) No public disturbance J) No minors G) max 5 grams; 500 grams I) Only Dutch residents AHOJGI-criteria: A) No advertisement H) No hard drugs 0) No public disturbance J) No minors G) max 5 grams; 500 grams I) Only Dutch residents

Results - Type of drug P=0.06 In percentages

Results - Court decisions ***

Results – Defenses In percentages

Results - Reasons appeal denied

Discussion & conclusion 1. Drug-related activities Trading stock (>5 grams soft drugs; 5 plants; >0,5 grams hard drugs) Violation of the AHOJGI-criteria Selling drugs Growing cannabis

Discussion & conclusion 2. Characteristics case: 3. Determining factors: Presence of drugs Cannabis cultivation in homes Dealing drugs in other buildings ‘One strike you are out’-policy Type of drugs Type of premises Defense Amount of drugs

References De Jong, M.A.D.W. “The Dutch Mayor as crimefighter: lifebuoy of false guide?,” in: L.J.J. Rogier & M.A.D.W. de Jong (red.), Administrative approach of crime and terrorism. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2007. Lawless, R.M., Robbennolt, J.K. and Ulen, T.S. Empirical Methods in Law. Austin: Kluwer, 2010. Spong, G., Smeets, S. and Vis, T. The hypocrisy of the “backdoor” . Zutphen: Balans, 2012. Teurlings, M. and Cohen, P. “Regulating the “backdoor” of the coffeeshop.” NJB, 6 (2005), 298-302. “Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers],” 30515, 3 (2005/2006), 2 and 6-8. “Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers],” 25 324, 1 (1996/1997). “Opium Act Instructions” Staatscourant, (2015), 5391.