Each year a large number of cars and trucks are stolen for export in regions of the United States bordering Mexico. Most of these vehicles are simply driven across the border where they generally remain. By contrast, few stolen vehicles are reportedly exported across the border with Canada.† This guide is therefore mostly concerned with the problem of vehicles stolen for export to Mexico, though it should also be useful to police dealing with the problems of exporting stolen vehicles across land borders elsewhere in the world.††
There is no reliable measure of vehicle thefts for export in the United States. These thefts are included in the police statistics of unrecovered vehicle thefts, a broad category that includes many other kinds of vehicle theft, such as vehicles stolen for the sale of their parts. This means that local police may underestimate the scale of theft for export in their jurisdiction. The lack of data also makes it difficult for local police to analyze and deal with the problem.This guide is primarily intended to help local police deal with theft for export, though it might also be of value to county or state agencies. It summarizes the factors that put local jurisdictions at risk of theft for export, and provides a method of estimating the size of their problem. It identifies information that police should collect when engaged in a problem-oriented project to reduce theft for export. Finally, it provides details on methods that have been developed to deal effectively with this problem.
† Analyses of the nationwide distribution of auto theft, discussed in the "Extent of the Problem" section of this guide, show little evidence of concentrations in border areas with Canada. This suggests there is little demand in that country for stolen U.S. vehicles.
††For example, many cars stolen in South Africa are driven across borders to other African countries. The demise of the Soviet system resulted in a large number of cars being stolen in Western Europe and exported across land borders to Russia and other Eastern European countries. The emerging market economies in those countries created a demand for cars that domestic producers could not meet, and criminal entrepreneurs moved in to fill the gap.
Export of stolen vehicles across land borders is but one aspect of the larger set of problems related to vehicle theft and the set of problems related to border crossings. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms created by the export of stolen vehicles across land borders. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, each of which requires separate analysis, include:
Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in this series. An up-to-date list of current and future guides is at www.popcenter.org.
There are no reliable statistics for the number of stolen vehicles that are exported across land borders because police-recorded crime subsumes these vehicles under the larger category of unrecovered vehicle thefts. Although the Uniform Crime Reports do not record the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles, in 2009 the value of these vehicles was reportedly $1.96 billion, with an average loss per theft of $6,505. A simple calculation of these numbers yields a figure of about 301,300 unrecovered vehicle thefts in that year.
Apart from vehicles stolen for export, these unrecovered thefts include vehicles that are:
The number of unrecovered vehicles falling into these categories is not known. It is also not known how many vehicles stolen for export are driven across land borders and how many are exported by sea.
Despite the lack of hard numbers, there is much evidence that theft of vehicles for export across land borders - in particular the border with Mexico - is a substantial problem. Several research studies have found that the number of unrecovered thefts is higher, sometimes much higher, in regions of the country that are closer to the border. No known reason other than theft for export to Mexico can account for this disproportion of unrecovered thefts, which is documented in the following studies:
1. Aldridge (2007) reports that in 2005 about one third of all recorded vehicle thefts in the United States (413,864 out of 1,244,525) occurred in the four states bordering Mexico (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). Based on the number of vehicles registered in these four states, which according to the U.S. Census Bureau1 is only 23 percent (57,634,000) of all vehicles registered in the United States, this proportion is substantially higher than expected. Aldridge also reports that California’s vehicle theft rate was more than double the national average, but the vehicle theft rate in just the southern portion of San Diego County, which borders Mexico, was four times the national average. The San Diego Police Department Southern Division (directly across the Mexican border) reported a rate of 17.45 auto thefts per 1,000 inhabitants. The rest of San Diego County reported theft rates as low as 2.72 per 1,000 inhabitants.2
2. The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) publishes data on vehicle theft rates in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). These are calculated by dividing the number of vehicle thefts in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database by the U.S. Census Bureau’s population estimates. NICB reports show evidence consistent with theft for export: eight of the top 10 ranked MSAs in 2010 were in California, of which the majority were in southern or central California, close to the border with Mexico.
3. A report produced in 2009 by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), a nonprofit research organization funded by automobile insurance companies, concluded that (a) theft losses in the Mexican border area have increased greatly over the last 8 years;††† (b) these losses are generally concentrated in southern portions of Texas and Arizona; and (c) they are skewed more toward border areas when compared to overall vehicle thefts, indicating a prevalence of unrecovered thefts (see Figure 1). According to this report, “Six of the 10 metropolitan statistical areas with the worst (highest) theft losses are along the border with Mexico, and one is near the border. The other three with the highest theft losses are port cities.” The report’s many maps clearly demonstrate that vehicle thefts are prevalent in counties near borders and ports. In addition, the report concludes that this pattern of concentration has increased in recent years, which suggests that theft for export is a growing problem.††††
4. Block et al. (2011) conducted a geographic analysis to estimate the size of the theft for export problem. They found that vehicle thefts were overrepresented in high-traffic border areas when compared with levels of other index crimes. For example, three of the top five counties for vehicle theft shared a border with Mexico (Pima and Santa Cruz, Arizona and San Diego, California). At the state level, California and Arizona had about 110,000 more vehicle thefts than would be predicted by levels of other index offenses.3
Figure 1: Theft Overall Losses by County for 2000 - 08 Models in Calendar Year 2008
Photo Credit: Adapted from HLDI (2009), August 9, 2011
Not all of these 110,000 stolen vehicles would have been exported to Mexico. For example, some of the vehicles stolen in California might have been shipped overseas. This figure also does not include thefts for export to Mexico from other states. However, the figure is broadly consistent with the estimate made for many years by the NICB that 30 - 35 percent of unrecovered stolen vehicles were exported‡ and it provides the best estimate available of the extent of the problem.
Federal and other agencies’ concerted efforts in dealing with the problem of vehicles stolen for export to Mexico provide further evidence of its scale and importance. For example, the United States developed a model bilateral agreement for the repatriation of stolen vehicles (see United Nations 1997) and signed it with several Latin American countries. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened its stolen vehicle database to other countries (Davis 1999). The NICB (which is supported by the American insurance industry) has stationed officials in Mexico and other South American countries to assist in the process of repatriating vehicles. Various law enforcement agencies in border regions have formed task forces to deal with auto theft, including the California Highway Patrol, El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. (See “Reponses to the Problem of Vehicles Stolen for Export Across Land Borders” on pg. 19.)
†††This is consistent with other evidence reviewed by Cherbonneau and Wright (2009) that shows a growing concentration of vehicle thefts in western states, where theft rates have increased by 33 percent since 1999. During the same time period, theft rates in all other regions of the country have declined by 37 percent.
†††† Some law enforcement authorities believe this growth is fueled by an emerging "cars for cocaine" trafficking problem. A Division of Motor Vehicles office opened at the Port of Miami in Florida to help deal with this suspected problem (Leen 1985).
‡ The NICB no longer publishes these estimates because of untested assumptions in producing them (Clarke and Brown 2003).
Though difficult to identify, measure, and analyze, there is little doubt that the problem of vehicles stolen for export across the border with Mexico is significant in terms of the numbers of vehicles stolen and the total dollars lost. The problem affects many regions of the country and cannot be ignored.
Because of the lack of data concerning the theft for export problem, there are only a few research studies on the nature of the problem. However, research does provide some information on who commits the thefts, how the vehicles are stolen and transferred across the border, and which models are most at risk. Following is a summary of this information.
Research suggests that juveniles often commit vehicle thefts.‡‡ One study found that large organized theft rings, “frontera-rings,” are involved in the business of transporting stolen cars from the United States to Mexico,4 but they rely upon Mexican juveniles - who are brought to border cities - to steal the cars.5 Other less sophisticated theft rings also rely on adolescents for “cross-border stealing.”6 In some cases, juvenile offenders operate largely independently7 and “might steal a car in the afternoon and sell it that same evening in Mexico.”8
Though there is little firm evidence of this, it’s believed that both legal and illegal immigrants are involved in exporting stolen vehicles, as they may have the necessary contacts, resources, and knowledge of the market for vehicles. They are also known to be involved in many other forms of transnational crime, such as human smuggling and drug trafficking.
There is anecdotal evidence that some seasonal workers from Mexico steal cars to take back home (just as seasonal workers in Sweden are said to do9). They might subsequently return to the United States in the same vehicles, as there are occasional reports of cars known to be stolen for export subsequently being stopped by police in this country.
‡‡ This may be different from theft for export in other parts of the world. INTERPOL (1999) reports that "German authorities, for example, found that stealing expensive German cars was common among Russian organized crime groups. Some scholars argue that in Russia, for example, it is unlikely for many individuals to have the 'necessary expertise to steal cars, the skills to falsify documents, the connections to smuggle them across borders, falsify documents in Russia that allows registration of these cars, and also find buyers for them.'"
One careful study shows that border car thieves often cruise large parking lots, such as those used by city workers, commuters, or customers of stores such as Home Depot, looking for suitable cars to steal. They are secure in the knowledge that owners are likely to be away from their vehicles for several hours, which is long enough to get a vehicle across the border before its theft is discovered.10
Thieves also might pay a small fee to car park attendants and security guards, who can provide valuable information about the location of particular models and may help in other small ways.11
Although some stolen vehicles are loaded onto trucks, most are simply driven across the border.ψ Thieves who steal cars near Mexico usually drive them across the border without changing their identities. If they cross the border before the car is reported stolen, it is highly likely they will avoid detection.
ψ Moving stolen vehicles from South Africa to Zimbabwe often involves driving the vehicles to the border area where new drivers, who have better knowledge of border procedures and contacts in the destination country, take the vehicles through the border. In other cases, vehicles are driven across borders on dates and at times when border officials who are known to accept bribes are on duty at the border post (Irish 2005).
Certain vehicle models are at a higher risk of being stolen for export. Early studies found that these are models that “blend in” because they are also manufactured or sold legitimately in Mexico.12
A more recent study in Chula Vista, California, a city close to the Mexican border, found that five models accounted for 43 percent of the vehicles stolen. Three of these models were small pick-up trucks manufactured by Toyota, Nissan, and Ford.13
In 2009, five of the top 10 stolen vehicles in Arizona were pick-up trucks, compared with two out of 10 nationwide. Pick-up trucks and large sports utility vehicles (SUV) are sought after by Mexican criminal gangs, who use them as “load vehicles” to transport either illegal immigrants or illegal drugs from Mexico into the United States.14
The routine installation of central locking systems and ignition transponders in recent years has greatly improved the security of new vehicles and has contributed to a large decline in vehicle theft, especially of new cars.15 This improved security also may have reduced thefts for export across land borders, if, as it seems, many of the thefts are committed by juveniles; however, there are no reliable statistics to support this. On the other hand, when the security of new cars is improved, thieves will displace their attention to older models.16 Because there are still many older vehicles available to steal, it may be a few years before improved vehicle security reduces theft for export to Mexico.ρ
ρ In explaining the presence of old Toyotas on their list of the five most stolen vehicles in Chula Vista, California, Plouffe and Sampson (2004) learned from interviewing thieves who admitted taking cars into Mexico that: "Some targeted older Toyotas, as any old Toyota ignition key opened and started the vehicle, reducing the effort involved in stealing these vehicles. This last finding came as a surprise to auto theft detectives, who had believed that auto thieves used shaved keys. Offenders picking old Toyotas didn't even have to make the effort to shave an old key."
In addition to the studies described above, following is more evidence that supports the strong correlation between auto theft rates and proximity to the Mexican border:
Many difficulties stand in the way of checking vehicles that cross the border into Mexico from the United States:
An example of the daily vehicle congestion at a border crossing between the United States and Mexico.
An example of the daily vehicle congestion at a border crossing between the
United States and Mexico.
The export of stolen vehicles relies on a ready supply of attractive vehicles in a developed country, the demand for these vehicles in another, less developed country, and a ready means of transporting them from origin to destination.26 These three conditions help explain the problem of vehicles stolen for export to Mexico. They also help explain the increase in car theft in Europe following the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in 1989, which brought the “wealthy half of the continent, where consumer goods are available in unlimited quantities, into close contact with the poor half,” where these commodities are in high demand but not readily available.27 Some estimates suggest that about 20 - 35 percent of the newer, expensive cars in Russia were stolen in Western Europe.28
To protect the national automobile industry in Mexico, the import of vehicles less than 4-years-old is prohibited. Older vehicles can be brought into the 20-kilometer border zone under permit after a 15 percent duty is paid.29 Stolen vehicles exported to Mexico that do not meet these requirements are labeled as contraband rather than as stolen property. These cars are then confiscated and used by police and officials, rather than considered stolen and returned to the United States.30
Disposing of a stolen vehicle in the destination country usually meets few challenges.χ In Russia, for example, the false documents used to bring the car into the country from Western Europe are destroyed and a new set of illegal documents are produced. This is usually accomplished with the help of corrupt law enforcement and other officials.31
In Mexico, once stolen cars are in the black market for sale, a bribe to officials can often deal with the threat of confiscation.32 Corruption exists not only inside Mexico, but also on the U.S.-Mexico border, where there is believed to be a “general understanding” between Mexican Customs officials and those who transport stolen vehicles.33
χ In South Africa, corruption (and intimidation) of officials in vehicle registration offices is one method of obtaining a new identity for stolen vehicles, many of which are exported to neighboring countries (Ndhlovu 2002).
In Western Europe, insurance fraud is “one of the driving forces behind” vehicle theft for export.34 In some instances, owners of luxury vehicles sell their cars to Eastern European criminals for a fraction of their value, do not report the ‘thefts’ to the authorities until the cars have crossed the international border, and then collect money from their insurance company. In such cases, the owners collect money both from the ‘thieves’ and the insurance company. In other instances, ‘thieves’ do not pay the owner, and he collects extra money from his insurance company because the insurance value of the car is greater than its actual value.35
Although some vehicles stolen for export to Mexico might have been stolen for insurance fraud purposes, there are two reasons why insurance fraud would play a smaller part in the United States than in Western Europe, Firstly, car owners in Europe carry insurance that lets them recover the full cost of the car if it is stolen. In the United States, not every comprehensive (full) insurance policy covers car theft, and even if it does, it is still not guaranteed that the owner will receive the full value of the car due to the depreciation of the car’s value over time or other factors. Secondly, cars stolen in the United States are rarely expensive luxury models, and car owners in the United States rarely purchase full insurance for non-luxury cars.The information provided earlier is a general description of the problem of theft of vehicles for export across land borders, in particular to Mexico. To be more effective in your enforcement and prevention efforts, you must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing your local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.
The following groups have an interest in the export of stolen vehicles across land borders. Consider the contribution they might make to help you gather information about the problem and respond to it:ζ
ζ For more detailed information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3 Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.
Auto theft for export is often hidden among the general category of unrecovered vehicle thefts. Therefore, you should be alert to certain conditions. Your jurisdiction is at an increased risk of vehicles stolen for export to Mexico, if you have:
To help you determine whether your jurisdiction experiences a significant number of thefts for export, request your crime analyst’s help in calculating your jurisdiction’s Location Quotients for Crime (LQC). These will show whether your auto theft rates, and, in particular, your rates of unrecovered thefts (assuming you have records of these) are particularly high. More information about calculating LQCs is in Appendix B.
Assuming you have a problem of vehicles stolen for export to Mexico, following are some critical questions you should ask when analyzing your problem. Your answers to these questions will help you choose the most appropriate responses, which are discussed later in this guide. Most importantly, these questions will help you determine the prevalence of the auto theft for export problem in your jurisdiction. (Those analyzing a theft for export problem in jurisdictions that are not close to the border with Mexico should adapt these questions to their own situations.)
Some of these questions may be difficult for you to answer, but you have an important source of information - the offenders you arrest. By carefully interviewing these offenders, you will learn the methods they use to steal cars and then get them across the border. Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 3, Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving (available at www.popcenter.org) provides guidance for conducting such interviews.
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results. You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. You should measure effects not only in the target area, but also in the areas immediately surrounding it to see if there is any evidence of displacement or diffusion of benefits (for assistance, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion, at www.popcenter.org). Such an analysis might suggest ways to improve your response if it has achieved limited results.
Below are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to the problem of vehicle theft for export:
For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, at www.popcenter.org.
Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.
The response strategies discussed below provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your problem of vehicles stolen for export across land borders. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and published accounts by police agencies. Several of the strategies may apply to your community’s problem. The responses you adopt should be tailored to local circumstances, and each response should be justified based on reliable analysis. It is often more effective to implement several different responses; therefore, do not limit yourself to only one response.
This guide focuses primarily on what local police can do, but you should recognize that law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself, therefore, to considering only what local police can do to reduce the problem of vehicles stolen for export across land borders.
In some cases, your jurisdiction might try to get other agencies to adapt their established practices in order to perform a stronger role in preventing the export of stolen cars. For example, the U.S. Border Patrol operates 71 traffic checkpoints along the southern border, of which 32 are permanent and 39 are “tactical.” The Border Patrol uses these checkpoints to search for illegal drugs and vehicles being used to smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States (GAO 2005). Using these checkpoints to also detect stolen vehicles being taken into Mexico would provide a partial solution to the difficulties of checking cars at border crossings.
In thinking about the respective roles of the different agencies, it is useful to consider the three main stages in the process of exporting stolen cars across land borders: (1) the vehicle is stolen, (2) the vehicle is moved across the border, and (3) the vehicle is sold or otherwise disposed of. Local police can make their greatest impact at the point of the initial theft,36 border agencies at the point of moving the vehicle across the border, and agencies such as the NICB once the vehicle is in the destination country.
In fact, the local police response to auto theft for export is closely linked to their response to auto theft in general. Responses discussed in two existing Problem-Specific Guides - No. 46, Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways, and No. 10, Thefts of and from Cars in Parking Facilities (available at www.popcenter.org), are therefore relevant to this problem as well.
These guides are worth reading carefully. However, as shown below, some of the responses will assume special significance, or will require modification, to deal effectively with theft of vehicles for export.
κ Also see Police Response Guide No. 8, Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas.
2. Increasing public awareness. Police might use the media to distribute information about models that are at a particular risk locally. This could be linked to crime prevention publicity campaigns that encourage vehicle owners to properly secure their parked cars and trucks, even during the heat of the day.ε A campaign conducted in New South Wales by the National Roads and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) involved disseminating leaflets with detailed information about high-risk locations and vulnerable models. The campaign was reinforced by extensive media coverage and through NRMA-sponsored discussions with neighborhood watch groups to raise awareness at the local level. The campaign was followed by a drop of about 20 percent in the number of thefts as measured by police data and insurance claims.38
3. Encouraging citizens to cooperate with police in vehicle checks. The Citizens Against Auto Theft (CAAT) program, developed and implemented by the police department in McAllen, Texas, involved placing colored decals on windows of cars that were not to be driven during certain hours of the day or into Mexico to serve as an alert to law enforcement officials.39 An evaluation of the program found that none of the 3,645 CAAT vehicles were stolen during 1990 and 1991. The program also served as a valuable public relations tool and reduced fear of theft among participating citizens.
4. Encouraging use of vehicle-tracking systems. LoJack® and OnStar® are examples of devices that owners can install on their vehicles that will identify their locations and assist in their recovery if they are stolen. Recovery rates as high as 95 percent are claimed for vehicles equipped with these devices,40 and LoJack is claimed to have been effective when used by the Massachusetts State Police.41 However, the effectiveness of these devices for detecting and recovering stolen vehicles along the U.S.-Mexico border is questionable for a few reasons. First, the systems are costly and car owners are likely to purchase them only if they own an expensive vehicle; few vehicles stolen for export would fall into this category. Second, the systems work only with participating law enforcement agencies and have a limited coverage area in both the United States and Mexico. Last, locating a stolen vehicle through LoJack might be useful only if the vehicle is still in the United States; once a vehicle is in Mexico, there may be little police can do to recover it. The “virtual fence” now used by LoJack might provide a partial solution to this problem. If the “fence” is breached, the system is activated and gives police trackers the opportunity to intercept the vehicle before it reaches the border. Despite this and other improvements that might make the systems more effective, their costs will limit their deployment in the effort to reduce the theft of vehicles for export to Mexico.
5. Using “bait vehicles” with tracking devices. More than 100 bait vehicles are being used by Southwest border states to assist in the prevention, disruption, and investigation of cross-border motor vehicle thefts.42 These bait vehicles, which are equipped with remote control technologies, are placed in vehicle theft hot spots. In 2003, the Arizona Automobile Theft Authority (AATA) began a statewide program with more than 30 bait vehicles. By April 2005, the use of these vehicles had led to 100 arrests in Scottsdale, Arizona (though not necessarily for the theft of vehicles for export).43
6. Working to establish a task force that focuses on the international trade in stolen cars. Many local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies have formed motor vehicle theft task forces that work together to enhance investigations that would lead to reducing the number of vehicle thefts and increasing the number of arrests of car thieves.44 In addition to investigating recovered vehicles, these task forces can also monitor chop shops and other facilities that might be involved in vehicle thefts. Examples of such task forces include the following:
7. Employing “DUI” checkpoints before the border. DUI checkpoints have proven effective, not just in apprehending drunk drivers, but also in arresting individuals suspected of committing crimes, the more common of which are possession of stolen property, possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, and motor vehicle theft. These constitutionally allowable police tactics would offer a partial solution to the difficulties of checking cars at border crossings. They might be especially effective given their random deployment. Vehicles driven by motorists who are unwilling to go through the checkpoint would be followed and stopped by teams expecting this response from car thieves.
ε Crime prevention publicity campaigns have uncertain results (see Response Guide No: 5, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns, available at www.popcenter.org, but ones focused on particular models and very specific precautions might be more effective.
8. Repatriating vehicles by treaty. The United States has developed bilateral agreements for recovering and repatriating stolen vehicles with many Latin American countries.48 However, the recovery process is long and cumbersome. The United States must first establish that a particular vehicle is being held by Mexican law enforcement authorities, and then the U.S. Consulate must submit a petition and vehicle documents to the Mexican federal court for review. Recovering the stolen vehicle is not possible until several months after these steps are taken.49 Most importantly, current treaties do not require the return of the stolen vehicle if local courts award it to a third party in the country of recovery.50 The NICB’s repatriation services, which involve locating, identifying, and returning stolen vehicles found in Mexico, have also been widely used by vehicle financing companies. The program involves gathering information about these vehicles and cross-referencing it against the FBI’s vehicle theft database. When a match is made, the financing company is notified, giving them the opportunity to have their vehicles returned to the United States. Although “repatriating” is a necessary tool in the fight against cross-border vehicle theft, there is a limited amount a local police agency can do to employ this technique.
9. Employing automatic license plate readers (LPRs) at border crossings. License plate readers can capture an image of the front and rear license plate and provide real-time vehicle information to the Customs and Border Protection network.51 As long as the vehicle has been reported stolen, these readers make it theoretically possible for Customs and Border Protection to identify stolen vehicles. Unfortunately, reports of using the readers, at least in California, have not been encouraging. They are sometimes out of service and are easily foiled (for example, when plastic covers the plate or if the vehicle passes too quickly into Mexico).52 In addition, customs officials are often forced to ignore the alarms from these readers due to the high volume of vehicles crossing the border.53 This does not mean LPRs will never be useful, as they are constantly being developed and upgraded. For example, mobile LPRs, which are now available, could be deployed randomly at busy crossings to keep offenders guessing about where the LPRs are located. They might also be more effective if they are used not at the border but on roads leadingto the border by staff that could focus solely on their alerts.
The table summarizes the responses to the problem of auto theft for export, the mechanism by which these responses are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work, and some factors you should consider before implementing the suggested response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. As noted earlier, an effective strategy might involve implementing several different responses, and you are therefore encouraged to take this into consideration. Also, keep in mind that law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.
| # | Response | How It Works | Works Best If… | Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Police Responses | ||||
| 1 | Paying close attention to highrisk parking facilities |
Directs police attention to the lots that require more patrolling and that might be made more secure |
....the analysis is conducted regularly and the highestrisk facilities are given priority; risk assessments account for the lot's distance to a freeway |
Police must work closely with the facilities' owners and managers to ensure needed security improvements are made |
| 2 | Increasing public awareness |
Citizens are made aware of the problem and their potential vulnerability |
....public information campaigns focus on specific high-risk models and provide detailed advice about preventing theft |
Publicity campaigns are often more valuable as a way of reassuring the community than of preventing crime |
| 3 | Encouraging citizens to cooperate with police in vehicle checks |
Involves the community in efforts to reduce vehicle theft |
....there is extensive community participation and initial successes are heavily publicized in the local area |
The program can serve as a valuable public relations tool and can reduce fear of theft among participating citizens |
| 4 | Encouraging use of vehicle-tracking systems |
The technology transmits real-time information to the police about the vehicle's location; this assists in recovery and serves as a deterrent to thieves |
....the vehicle hasn't left the country; the technology works over a wide area and is used by many law enforcement agencies |
The systems are not affordable for many citizens. The technology's effectiveness is reduced once the vehicle crosses the international border |
| 5 | Using "bait vehicles" with tracking devices |
Bait vehicles with remote control technologies are planted in high-theft areas and tracked once stolen |
....it results in the arrest of the thieves; potential thieves are made aware of the risk of choosing a bait car and are thus deterred from theft |
The vehicles used might need to be changed regularly to avoid predictability |
| 6 | Working to establish a task force that focuses on the international trade in stolen cars |
Agencies at the local, state, and federal levels cooperate to enhance investigations leading to arrests for theft of vehicles for export |
....strong partnerships are forged not just between U.S. law enforcement agencies, but also with those in Mexico |
Law enforcement priorities across agencies can be different; this might serve as a hindrance if common priorities are not established |
| 7 | Employing "DUI" check points before the border |
DUI checkpoints have proven effective in arresting individuals for a variety of crimes, including motor vehicle theft. Vehicles failing to stop would be pursued |
....the checkpoints are deployed at random times and at different points on roads leading to the border |
These constitutionally allowable police tactics would offer a partial solution to the difficulties of checking cars at the border crossings |
| Other Agency Responses | ||||
| 8 | Repatriating vehicles by treaty |
A formal stolen vehicle recovery method is used |
....there is close cooperation among the U.S. Consulate, the FBI, and the NICB. The time of recovery and repatriation does not extend over several months |
The delays in repatriation have sometimes resulted in law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border making use of informal agreements to recover stolen vehicles |
| 9 | Employing automatic license plate readers (LPRs) at border crossings |
The readers provide real-time vehicle information to the Customs and Border Protection network, identifying stolen vehicles by crossreferencing it against a stolen vehicles database |
....mobile readers are deployed in a random fashion. LPRs are deployed not just at the border but also on roads leading to the border |
License-plate readers are sometimes inaccurate; many cars are driven across the border before their theft is reported |
| Responses with Limited Effectiveness | ||||
| 10 | Intensively monitoring all border crossings |
Checking a high volume of vehicles at border crossings and on the international bridges at peak times |
....this does not cause any significant border crossing delays and does not require extensive police or other resources |
If it works at the specific border crossing, examine the possible displacement to nearby border crossings and bridges |
[1] U.S. Census Bureau (2011).
[2] Aldridge (2007).
[3] Block et al. (2011).
[4] Resendiz (1998).
[5] Garcia and Garcia (2006).
[6] Miller (1987).
[7] Resendiz and Neal (2000).
[8] Resendiz (1998).
[9] Clarke and Brown (2003).
[10] Plouffe and Sampson (2004).
[11] Gant and Grabosky (2001).
[12] Miller (1987); Field, Clarke, and Harris (1991).
[13] Plouffe and Sampson (2004).
[14] Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2004).
[15] Cherbonneau and Wright (2009).
[16] Brown (2004).
[17] Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2004); Plouffe and Sampson (2004); Miller 1987); Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).
[18] Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).
[19] Miller (1987).
[20] Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2004).
[21] U.S. Department of Transportation (2009).
[22] Villarreal (2010).
[23] Plouffe and Sampson (2004).
[24] Clarke and Harris (1992); Plouffe and Sampson (2004); Cherbonneau and Wright 2009); Shane (2010).
[25] Small and Taylor (2005).
[26] Clarke and Brown (2003).
[27] Gerber and Killias (2003).
[28] Gerber and Killias (2003).
[29] Miller (1987).
[30] Miller (1987).
[31] Gerber and Killias (2003).
[32] Resendiz (1998).
[33] Resendiz (2006).
[34] Gerber and Killias (2003).
[35] Gerber and Killias (2003).
[36] Plouffe and Sampson (2004).
[37] Clarke and Eck (2007).
[38] Clarke and Harris (1992).
[39] Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).
[40] Clarke and Harris (1992).
[41] Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).
[42] Aldridge (2007).
[43] Aldridge (2007).
[44] Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).
[45] Texas Department of Public Safety (2002); Adger (2007).
[46] El Paso County Auto Theft Prevention Task Force (2001).
[47] California Highway Patrol (2003).
[48] General Accounting Office (1999).
[49] Gallahan (1997).
[50] General Accounting Office (1999).
[51] Williams (2008).
[52] Plouffe and Sampson (2004).
[53] Wright (2001).
[54] Miller (1987).
[55] Block et al. (2011).
Adger, K. (2007). “An Analysis of Location and Offender Characteristics for Motor Vehicle Theft in Texas from 2001 to 2005.” Thesis. University of North Texas.
Aldridge, C.D. (2007). “‘Bait Vehicle’ Technologies and Motor Vehicle Theft Along the Southwest Border.” Report funded by the Justice and Safety Center of Eastern Kentucky University, performed by the NLECTC/Border Research and Technology Center, a program of the National Institute of Justice.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Statistical Analysis Center (2004). “Arizona Auto Theft Study.” Phoenix (Arizona).
Block, S, R.V. Clarke, M.G. Maxfield, and G. Petrossian (2011). “Estimating the Number of U.S. Vehicles Stolen for Export Using Crime Location Quotients.” In Patterns, Prevention and Geometry of Crime, edited by Martin Andresen and J. Bryan Kinney. London: Routledge.
Brown, R. (2004). “The Effectiveness of Electronic Immobilization: Changing Patterns of Temporary and Permanent Vehicle Theft.” In Understanding and Preventing Car Theft (Crime Prevention Studies V.17), edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Michael G. Maxfield, 101 - 120. Criminal Justice Press.
California Highway Patrol (2003). “Vehicle Ownership Security: A Proactive Approach to Vehicle Theft Prevention in California.” Goldstein Awards. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2003/03-05(F).pdf.
Cherbonneau, M., and R. Wright (2009). “Auto Theft.” In The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy, edited by Michael Tonry. Oxford University Press.
Clarke, R.V. (2002). “Thefts of and from Cars in Parking Facilities.” Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. www.popcenter.org.
Clarke, R.V., and R. Brown (2003). “International Trafficking in Stolen Vehicles.” In Crime and Justice, Volume 30, edited by Michael Tonry, 197 - 227. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, R.V., and J.E. Eck (2007). “Understanding Risky Facilities.” Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 6. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. www.popcenter.org.
Clarke, R.V., and P. Harris (1992). “Auto Theft and its Prevention.” In Crime and Justice, Volume 16, edited by Michael Tonry, 1 - 47. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
El Paso County Auto Theft Prevention Task Force (2001). Untitled. Goldstein Awards. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2001/01-18.pdf.
Ethridge, P.A., and J.R. Sorensen (1993). “An Evaluation of Citizens Against Auto Theft.”Security Journal 4 (1): 13 - 19.
Field, S., R.V. Clarke, and P. Harris (1991). “The Mexican Vehicle Market and Auto Theft in Border Areas of the United States.” Security Journal 2:205 - 210.
Gallahan, R.L. (1997). “Vehicle Theft and Recovery in Texas Cities Along the United States-Mexico Border.” Master’s Thesis. Texas State University, Public Administration Program.
Gant, F., and P. Grabosky (2001). “The Stolen Vehicle Parts Market.” Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 215. Australian Institute of Criminology.
Garcia, J., and H. Garcia (2006). “Property Crime (Shoplifting and Auto Theft Along the Border).” In On the Edge of the Law: Culture, Labor and Deviance on the South Texas Border, edited by Chad Richardson and Rosalva Resendiz. University of Texas Press.
General Accounting Office (1999). “Efforts to Curtail the Exportation of Stolen Vehicles.” Report to the Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. GAO/OSI-99-10.
General Accounting Office (2005). “Border Patrol Available Data on Interior Checkpoints Suggest Differences in Sector Performance.” Government Accountability Office, Report to Congress. GAO-05-435.
Gerber, J., and M. Killias (2003). “The Transnationalization of Historically Local Crime: Auto Theft in Western Europe and Russian Markets.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 11 (2): 215 - 226.
Highway Loss Data Institute (2008). “Insurance Special Report: Theft Losses by County.” No. A-76. Alexandria, Virginia: Highway Loss Data Institute.
INTERPOL (2005). “INTERPOL at Work.” Annual Report.
INTERPOL (1999). “Frequently Asked Questions about Vehicle Theft.” As cited in Clarke and Brown (2003).
Irish, J. (2005). “Illicit Trafficking of Vehicles Across Beit Bridge Border Post.” Paper 109. Institute for Security Studies.
Leen, J. (1985). “Port Fights Export of Stolen Cars/Drug Bartering Boosts Traffic.”The Miami Herald, 1D.
Miller, M.V. (1987). “Vehicle Theft Along the Texas-Mexico Border.” Journal of Borderland Studies 2:12 - 32.
Newman, G.R. (2004). “Car Safety and Car Security: An Historical Comparison.” In Understanding and Preventing Car Theft (Crime Prevention Studies V.17), edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Michael G. Maxfield, 217 - 237. Criminal Justice Press.
Plouffe, N., and R. Sampson (2004). “Auto Theft and Theft from Autos in Parking Lots in Chula Vista, CA: Crime Analysis for Local and Regional Action.” In Understanding and Preventing Car Theft (Crime Prevention Studies V.17), edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Michael G. Maxfield, 147 - 171. Criminal Justice Press.
Resendiz, R. (1998). “International Auto Theft: An Exploratory Research of Organization and Organized Crime on the U.S./Mexico Border.” Criminal Organizations 12:25 - 30.
Resendiz, R. (2006). “International Auto Theft on the U.S./Mexico Border: Organized Crime and the ‘Organization.’” Unpublished manuscript.
Resendiz, R., and D.M. Neal (2000). “International Auto Theft: The Illegal Export of American Vehicles to Mexico.” In International Criminal Justice: Issues in Global
Perspective, edited by D. Rounds, 7 - 18. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Shane, J.M. (2010). “The Limits of Auto Parts-Marking as a Situational Crime Prevention Measure: A Qualitative Analysis.” Law Enforcement Executive Forum 10 (3): 109 - 140.
Small, K., and B. Taylor (2005). “State and Local Law Enforcement Response to Transnational Crime.” Caliber Associates.
Texas Department of Public Safety (2002). “Recovery of Stolen Vehicles from Mexico Rises.” Accessed November 24, 2008.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001.” Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001.
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). “Border Crossing/Entry Data.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. www.bts.gov.
Villarreal, A. (2010). “U.S. - Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications.” Congressional Research Service, RL 32934.
Williams, J. (2008). “U.S. Border Crossings Getting Enhanced Technology for Screening Vehicles and for Reading New Radio Frequency identification-enabled Documents.” Reuters, October 22. Accessed November 30, 2008.
Wright, J. (2001). “Push Is On To Stem Flow of Stolen Cars Crossing Mexican Border.”Los Angeles Times, April 11, G1.
Coming Soon !!
Important!
The quality and focus of these submissions vary considerably. With the exception of those submissions selected as winners or finalists, these documents are unedited and are reproduced in the condition in which they were submitted. They may nevertheless contain useful information or may report innovative projects.
You may order free bound copies in any of three ways:
Online: Department of Justice COPS Response Center
Email: askCopsRC@usdoj.gov
Phone: 800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480
Allow several days for delivery.
Send an e-mail with a link to this guide.
* required
Error sending email. Please review your enteries below.