text:
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
O u r mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona
Arizona Auto Theft Study
RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff
DENNIS GARRETT Department of Public Safety Director
JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff
DUANE BELCHER Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson
JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor
DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director
RON CHRISTENSEN Gila County Board of Supervisors
CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff
TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff
TERRY GODDARD Attorney General
BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney
ROD MARQUARDT Mohave County Chief Probation Officer
J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief
RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief
ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney
RICHARD M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney
DORA SCHRIRO Department of Corrections Director
CHRISTOPHER SKELLY Judge, Retired
RICHARD YOST El Mirage Police Department Chief JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Interim Executive Director
STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director
PAUL REEVS Senior Research Analyst JENNIFER PATTERSON Research/GIS Analyst
JOE JERICHO Senior Research Analyst JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst
PAUL KENT Special Investigator Phoenix Police Department
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank all those who contributed to this report.
Special Thanks To:
Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety Ric Athey, Motor Vehicle Division Joe Brosius, Tempe Police Department Joyce Dehnert, Department of Public Safety Mitch Halfpenny, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department Bryan Hill, Glendale Police Department Don Ijames, Tucson Police Department Paul Kent, Phoenix Police Department Connie Kostelac, Phoenix Police Department Mikel Longman, Arizona Auto Theft Authority Brian Salata, Pinal County Attorney's Office
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION REPORT PURPOSE METHODOLOGY PROBLEM STATEMENT National Trends, Rates and Distributions Worldwide Problem MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT IN ARIZONA Reasons for Auto Theft How Vehicles are Stolen Types and Number of Vehicles Stolen Load Vehicles Locations Where Vehicles are Stolen Clearance Rate Recovery Rate Chop Shops Extent of Motor Vehicle Theft Preliminary Data 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 9 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 23 24 24 26 31 31 36 38 39 42 44 44 49 54 54
The U.S./International Border
COST OF MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Monetary Loss VICTIM IMPACT OFFENDERS Demographics Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Population Juvenile Motor Vehicle Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Offender Interviews Youth Offenders � Arizona Youth Survey ARIZONA CASE STUDIES Phoenix Case Study Tucson Case Study Future Mapping Efforts MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT LEGISLATION
PROSECUTION Survey Data Vertical Prosecution PREVENTION "Watch Your Car" 2003 Watch Your Car Survey Public Awareness 2002 Law Enforcement Satisfaction Survey Arizona Vehicle Theft Task Force Automobile Parts Marking LAW ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES Arizona Strategies
55 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 62 62 63 64 64 65 67 67 68 68 69 73 75 79 82 85 88 95 96 97 108
Other Law Enforcement Strategies RELATED PROBLEMS Carjackings Auto Theft Insurance Fraud Auto Theft Related Deaths LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEY RESULTS Survey Footnotes LARGE URBAN AREA FOLLOW-UP STUDY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION APPENDIX A � Law Enforcement Motor Vehicle Theft Survey APPENDIX B � Motor Vehicle Theft Rate by Registered Vehicles APPENDIX C � Motor Vehicle Theft Rate by Population APPENDIX D � A.R.S pertaining to motor vehicle theft APPENDIX E � Prosecutor Motor Vehicle Theft Survey
Bait Cars In Person Reports Cooperative Efforts License Plate Readers
Table of Tables, Maps and Figures Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Map 1: Table 12: Map 2: Table 13: Map 3: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Motor Vehicle Theft Hot Spots and Rates International Motor Vehicle Theft Number of Thefts in 2000 Top Ten Stolen Vehicles by Location 2001 � 2002 Top Ten Stolen Vehicles by Location in 2001 Arizona Clearance Rates 1993-2002 National Clearance Rates 1993-2002 Arizona Recovery Rates Locally Stolen Vehicles Phoenix Recovery Rates Locally Stolen Vehicles Tucson Recovery Rates Locally Stolen Vehicles Recovery Rates in 1986 Texas Border Cities Comparison of Motor Vehicle Thefts Registered Vehicles and Population for 2002 U.S. Vehicle Theft 2002 Registered Vehicles in Arizona 1998 �2003 AZ Vehicle Theft Percent Change 2001-2002 Motor Vehicle Theft 1998 � 2002 AZ Vehicle Theft Reported Crime 2002 Motor Vehicle Theft Rates By County for 2002 Six Month Comparison Motor Vehicle Theft Reports 2002 and 2003 Economic Loss in Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft 1992-2002 Economic Loss in the United States Motor Vehicle Theft 1992-2002 Motor Vehicle Theft by Gender 2001-2002 Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft by Race 2001-2002 Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft by Race 2001-2002 United States Motor Vehicle Theft Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Breakdown 2001-2002 Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft Arrests by Age 2002 Reasons for Stealing Motor Vehicles Commitments to DOC 2000 � 2003 Age of Admission Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Race Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Substance Abuse History Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Gang Affiliation Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Age of Offense Total 1998-2003 Day of the Week Crime Committed Motor Vehicle Thefts by Juveniles 6 7 11 12 14 14 14 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 32 32 32 33 33 34 36 36 37 37 38 38 39
Table 31: Table 32: Table 33: Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38: Map 4: Map 5: Map 6: Map 7: Map 8: Map 9: Table 39: Table 40: Table 41: Figure 1: Figure 2: Table 42: Table 43: Table 44: Table 45: Table 46: Table 47: Table 48: Table 49: Table 50: Table 51: Table 52:
Time of Day Motor Vehicle Thefts by Juveniles Total Student Population Total Number of Best Friends Steal Motor Vehicles Total Student Population Total Vehicle Theft Frequency in the Last 12 Months Motor Vehicle Thieves Total Number of Best Friends Steal Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicle Thieves Total Vehicle Theft Frequency in the Last 12 Months Motor Vehicle Thieves Gender Motor Vehicle Thieves Ethnic Group Motor Vehicle Thieves Gang Involvement All stolen vehicles � Phoenix 2003 Stolen vehicles (later recovered) � Phoenix 2003 Unrecovered stolen vehicles � Phoenix 2003 All stolen vehicles � Tucson 2003 All recovered vehicles � Tucson 2003 Tucson stolen vehicle locations by recovery status � 2003 Vertical Prosecution Watch Your Car Program Enrollment FY1998-October, 2003 Participating Agencies Arizona Vehicle Theft Task Force Population Served by Survey Respondents Type of Jurisdiction Most Frequently Used Programs and Methods to Prevent Motor Vehicle Theft Recommendations to Decrease Auto Theft Arrested Perpetrators Most Commonly Stolen Vehicles Locations of Vehicles Stolen Reasons for Motor Vehicle Theft Methods Used to Steal Vehicles Support Signed Affidavit at Time of Report Positions Regarding Motor Vehicle Theft Strategies Motor Vehicle Theft Percent of Statewide Theft Motor Vehicle Theft in Arizona's Seven Largest Cities
39 42 42 43 43 43 43 44 46 47 48 51 52 53 56 58 60 69 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 72 72 73 75 75
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2002, Arizona had the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the United States, with the vast majority of these thefts occurring in Maricopa and Pima Counties. According to the Arizona Automobile Theft Authority (AATA), "a vehicle theft occurs every 9 minutes and 16 seconds" in Arizona, causing an estimated economic loss of $377,268,513 to residents of Arizona in 2002 alone. Preliminary data for Arizona in 2003 is positive and reflects a slight decrease in stolen vehicles. However, the decrease will more than likely not be large enough to remove Arizona from its number one ranking among states for motor vehicle theft. Analyzing data from a variety of sources has proved promising, yet it confirms the need for greater interagency cooperation, effective motor vehicle theft programs, and additional research. Motor vehicle theft, while often characterized simply as a property crime, is considered by law enforcement to be a gateway crime that often leads to more serious illegal activity. Vehicles are often stolen for use in the commission of crimes including smuggling activities and the disposal of stolen vehicles to "chop shops", where the vehicle is dismantled and the parts sold. The proximity to the U.S./Mexico border has contributed significantly to the use of stolen vehicles for the commission of crimes, as sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and large pick-up trucks are often targeted for theft to be used in narcotics or human smuggling. Although the majority of vehicles stolen in Arizona are recovered, the recovery rate is lower than the national rate. The city of Phoenix, which has the highest motor vehicle theft rate of any city in the nation, also has a much lower recovery rate than the national average. Further information was collected to identify the common modus operandi or practice of motor vehicle theft offenders in Arizona. Empirical data and offender interviews showed that thieves generally preferred to steal vehicles from large parking lots and that a high percentage of vehicles were stolen at night. Offenders employed a variety of methods including the use of devices such as "master" or "jiggle" keys and breaking the steering column. Ironically, the most common method of obtaining control of a vehicle was through the use of keys that were left in the vehicle. This information has been valuable in increasing vehicle owners' awareness, as well as to assist communities in implementing methods to make stealing a vehicle more difficult. Recent law enforcement prevention and apprehension efforts appear to be paying off according to initial data for 2003. Two programs that were mentioned by law enforcement and offenders alike as being highly effective in preventing motor vehicle theft were the "Watch Your Car" and the "bait car" programs. Law enforcement reported numerous apprehensions through the utilization of bait cars, and offenders have acknowledged its deterrent effect. The media attention given to the success of these initiatives has helped to alert thieves to their increased likelihood of apprehension.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The prevalence of this crime costs Arizona hundreds of millions of dollars every year as reported by the insurance industry. A portion of those costs translate into increased insurance rates. A consequence that is often overlooked is the associated effects of vehicle theft on victims. Anecdotal evidence from victim interviews illustrated that while the cost of replacing a stolen vehicle alone can be devastating, the lost means of transportation, inconvenience of replacing personal items lost with the vehicle, and psychological hardships have a severe impact not only on the victim, but on their family as well. Arrest and incarceration statistics indicate that the majority of motor vehicle thieves are white males between the ages of 15 and 29. Over seven percent of inmates incarcerated by the Department of Corrections were placed there due to convictions for motor vehicle theft. The vast majority of these inmates were substance abusers and nearly a quarter of incarcerated motor vehicle thieves were suspected of gang affiliation. A survey of Arizona youth in 2002 revealed that three percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students self-admit to having stolen a vehicle in the previous year. Approximately two-thirds of these students were male. Nearly 25 percent claimed to belong to a gang. Most of students who self-admitted to motor vehicle theft had friends who also stole vehicles. Prosecutors and law enforcement both mentioned the need for heavier penalties for motor vehicle theft, and a need for greater public awareness. Of particular importance to law enforcement was the need to increase penalties for repeat offenders and those who flee from officers, thereby placing the public at risk. The Arizona Vehicle Theft Task Force (AVTTF) was praised for its multi-jurisdictional approach that helped minimize the difficulty law enforcement saw in the fact that these crimes often take place over multiple jurisdictions. Motor vehicle theft continues to be a major problem in Arizona. The proximity to the border, interagency coordination, appropriate penalties for offenders, and the need for increased public awareness continue to create challenges for Arizona agencies. However, several strategies have been implemented to assist agencies in prevention and apprehension efforts. The initial research into these programs has introduced a good framework, and has identified challenges, trends, and successes in combating motor vehicle theft. From this point, discussions can begin taking place to devise meaningful policies that will direct resources both appropriately and effectively. Further examination of this crime is necessary, and can only lead to a more thorough understanding of the diverse nature of motor vehicle theft.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
INTRODUCTION Arizona had the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the United States in 2002. There were 57,668 vehicles reported stolen statewide, an increase of 10.5 percent over 2001. In Phoenix alone, 25,624 vehicles were reported stolen according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR). The preliminary data for 2003 shows a slight decrease in motor vehicle theft in Arizona, even though the rest of the nation experienced a slight increase. While this decline has the potential to eliminate Arizona as having the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the nation, Arizona's motor vehicle theft rate is still unacceptably high. Often this crime is viewed as simplistic, but this report will show that it is actually quite complex. It will discuss the dynamics of offender motivations and techniques, which is valuable information in the educational efforts to deter theft. The report will also provide a look into the underlying factors of motor vehicle theft such as the profound negative impact that it causes to victims, the fact that many vehicles are stolen and used in other crimes, and the effectiveness of programs that have incorporated simple solutions to minimize potential risk of theft. This includes a review of those strategies by law enforcement, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), and Arizona Automobile Theft Authority (AATA) that have contributed to the first decline in motor vehicle theft since 1999. Most of the findings in this document are immediately applicable to the development of intervention strategies useful to law enforcement, prosecution and communities. Data is presented to answer many common questions surrounding this crime, and several model programs are discussed that provide solutions to some of those questions. In general, this report is a useful tool to understand and combat motor vehicle theft in communities across Arizona, and it establishes a firm indication that future research would likely prove valuable. REPORT PURPOSE The Arizona Auto Theft Study publication was created to provide a comprehensive review on motor vehicle theft and the underlying conditions associated with the crime in Arizona. This report will examine how vehicles are stolen, as well as what factors increase the risk that a particular vehicle will be stolen and what vehicles are most likely to be stolen. The economic and personal loss caused by motor vehicle theft will be examined in order to quantify the cost of this crime. In addition, the demographics and attitudes of motor vehicle thieves will also be examined in order to better understand who commits auto theft. Once the problem of motor vehicle theft has been presented, this report will look at how Arizona is currently working to combat this problem, beginning with a legislative review of Arizona Revised Statutes related to motor vehicle thefts. Methods employed
Arizona Auto Theft Report
by prosecutors to increase conviction rates, as well as the results of those convictions will also be examined. A review of current prevention and law enforcement strategies will be discussed as well as what approaches have been shown to be successful in Arizona and elsewhere. It is intended that the Arizona Auto Theft Study will provide policymakers and criminal justice stakeholders with a more complete picture of the issues relative to the problem of motor vehicle theft. Further, this study is intended to provide insights that could assist policymakers in the development of potential strategies to better define and reduce the problem of motor vehicle theft. METHODOLOGY Given the complexities pertaining to the crime of motor vehicle theft, multiple strategies were employed in researching the nature of the problem. In examining this problem, it was important to compare theft and recovery rates of auto theft within Arizona to other regions across the country. Therefore, data obtained from Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) were analyzed for comparative purposes as part of this research study. Although UCR served as the primary source for comparison purposes, a greater understanding of the specific details related to motor vehicle theft issues was necessary. Methods to prevent auto theft were considered, as well as initiatives taken by law enforcement officials to reduce the incidents of auto theft in the state. A survey of law enforcement personnel dedicated to auto theft investigation was conducted to gather their input based upon personal experiences. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) faxed out a motor vehicle theft survey (Appendix A) to 114 law enforcement agencies in Arizona in September 2003. The agencies surveyed included state and federal law enforcement agencies, county sheriff's offices, municipal police departments, university police departments, and tribal police departments in Arizona. Of the 114 surveys sent out, 103 (90.4 percent) were returned. This survey asked 35 questions designed to ascertain the extent of motor vehicle theft in Arizona. Why and how vehicles are stolen is a major concern. The nature of offenders was explored through the analysis of demographic data available through Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) arrest data, offender interviews, and demographic data on offenders sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections. Through contact with the Arizona Auto Theft Authority and the insurance industry in Arizona, victims were identified and screened for interviews on the impact of motor vehicle theft on victims. The people selected for interviews all had vehicles stolen in 2003, were insured, and were willing to give an interview. Victims were contacted by phone and given an open ended victim survey designed to measure the affect that the theft of the vehicle had on the victim's life.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The research conducted was based upon a review of literature regarding auto theft and related subjects. Included in the research was a review of internet web sites either directly or indirectly related to the subject of auto theft. In addition, interviews of personnel in law enforcement were conducted both locally and out of state. Other interviews of appropriate individuals were also conducted. Meetings of Valley HEAT (Help Eliminate Auto Theft) and the Arizona Auto Theft Investigators Association (AATIA) were attended, allowing a chance to network with law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and insurance company personnel to gain further insight on the auto theft problem in Arizona. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division were also contacted for information regarding the number of vehicles registered in each state and nationally between 1998 and 2002. This information was compared to the number of vehicles stolen in each state in order to analyze the levels of theft per registered vehicle in each state. An analysis was also conducted based on student answers to the Arizona Youth Survey in 2002. This anonymous survey was given to nearly 20,000 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students in Arizona in 2002. Answers to questions related to the participation in theft of motor vehicles were compared to demographic and other information collected from the participants in order to provide a composite look at which students stole vehicles. Finally, given the extent of motor vehicle thefts in urban Arizona additional research was conducted in the Maricopa and Pima County areas. Specifically, reported motor vehicle theft and recovered vehicle address locations were requested from the Phoenix and Tucson Police Departments. In addition, a follow up interview was conducted with eight of the larger law enforcement agencies in these counties in April of 2004. PROBLEM STATEMENT As of 2002, Arizona had the highest reported number of motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 inhabitants of any state in the United States. Arizona's 2002 motor vehicle theft rate was 1,056.9 per 100,000 inhabitants which is 31.4 percent above second ranked Nevada. In addition, the Phoenix metropolitan area also leads the nation in auto theft. According to figures obtained from the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) for 2001, the Phoenix metropolitan area was number one in the country for vehicle thefts while the Tucson metropolitan area was number six. In 2002, the Phoenix metropolitan area retained its number one ranking while the Tucson metropolitan area dropped to number 13.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The NICB "Hot Spots" for vehicle theft in the nation as well as theft rates in 2001 and 2002 are as follows:
Table 1: Motor Vehicle Theft Hot Spots and Rates* 2001 2002 Phoenix, AZ � 1,088.76 Phoenix, AZ � 1,237.65 Miami, FL � 1,053.80 Fresno, CA � 1,074.02 Fresno, CA � 972.77 Modesto, CA � 1,015.89 Detroit, MI � 887.30 Stockton, CA � 1,012.07 Sacramento, CA � 854.20 Las Vegas, NV � 991.70 Tucson, AZ � 853.81 Miami, FL � 930.34 Tacoma, WA � 841.73 Sacramento, CA � 922.25 Stockton, CA � 837.83 Oakland, CA � 905.18 Seattle, WA � 834.46 Seattle, WA � 852.97 Jersey City, NJ � 827.13 Tacoma, WA � 835.74 Las Vegas, NV � 815.91 Detroit, MI � 825.09 Modesto, CA � 797.77 San Diego, CA � 802.07 Oakland, CA � 793.59 Tucson, AZ � 798.11
*Rate per 100,000 residents in each city From National Insurance Crime Bureau
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
In 2001, of these thirteen "Hot Spots", 10 cities were in the western portion of the country. In addition, five of the cities are either located close to the Mexican or Canadian border, while six are located in port cities where vehicles could be shipped out of country. In 2002, of the thirteen "Hot Spots" listed, 11 cities are in the western United States with six in California. The NICB data is based upon UCR Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). National Trends, Rates and Distributions In 2002, according to the FBI's Crime in the United States report, 1,246,096 motor vehicle thefts were reported in the United States, an increase of 1.4 percent over 2001 when 1,228,391 motor vehicles were reported stolen. The 2002 volume of motor vehicle theft was 0.3 percent higher than the number of motor vehicle thefts in 1998, and 20.3 percent lower than in 1993. The rate of thefts per 100,000 inhabitants in 2001 was 430.5, increasing 0.4 percent to 432.1 in 2002. The 2002 rate is 6.0 percent lower than in 1998 and 28.7 percent lower than in 1993. The estimated value of vehicles stolen increased from $8.2 billion in 2001 to $8.4 billion in 2002. The western region of the United States accounted for 32.9 percent of all reported motor vehicle thefts, compared to 35.2 percent in the South, 18.8 percent in the Midwest and 13.1 percent in the Northeast. While 32.9 percent of all motor vehicle thefts in the United States occurred in the West, the West only accounts for 22.8 percent of the national population. Nationally, 73.6 percent of vehicles stolen were automobiles, 18.6 percent were trucks and buses, and 7.8 percent were other vehicles. In the West, 70.8 percent of vehicles stolen in 2002 were automobiles, 22.9 percent were trucks and buses, and 6.4 percent were other vehicles. Clearance rates for auto thefts for the nation totaled 13.8 percent but only 10.8 percent in the West.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Worldwide Problem Although auto theft in the United States is a major concern, the United States is not the only nation to experience this problem. According to Interpol, the world's largest international police organization, the United States led the world in the total number of thefts reported in 2000. Of the top ten countries by number of vehicles stolen, the United States had more auto thefts than any other country in year 2000. However, there were six countries with greater rates per 100,000. Table 2: International Motor Vehicle Theft Number of Thefts in 2000 Population 3 Number of Rate per Country Thefts2 (in thousands) 100,000 United States of America 1,165,560 283,230 411.5 United Kingdom 411,730 59,415 693.0 France 302,626 59,238 510.9 Italy 243,890 57,530 423.9 Canada 160,268 30,769 520.9 Mexico 158,233 98,872 160.0 Australia 139,094 19,153 726.2 Spain 132,598 40,752 325.4 Germany 83,063 82,017 101.3 Switzerland 69,380 7,173 967.2
Rank1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(1) (2) (3)
Rank is for total number of thefts, not thefts per 100,000 residents. As reported to INTERPOL (http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp) As reported by the United Nations (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)
Switzerland, Australia and Great Britain are among the countries whose motor vehicle theft rate per 100,000 residents exceeded the United States. Of the ten countries with highest number of thefts, Great Britain had the third highest rate per 100,000 residents reporting 693.0 vehicles stolen per 100,000 residents, Australia had the second highest rate with a rate of 726.2 thefts per 100,000 residents and Switzerland had the highest rate at 967.2 motor vehicle thefts per 100,00 residents (2000 data). These numbers far exceed the 2000 rate in the United States of 411.5. Both Great Britain and Australia have taken steps to make the solving of this problem a national priority. Australia has created a National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council with the goal of "achieving one of the lowest levels of motor vehicle theft of any country in the industrial world over the next ten years." Great Britain has taken similar steps to "reduce vehicle crime (thefts of and from vehicles) by 30 percent by 2004 as compared to a baseline of 1998/99." The following strategies are being implemented in Australia to reduce motor vehicle related crime: � Reform motor vehicle registration nationwide to reduce the likelihood of stolen vehicles being re-registered.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
� � � �
Improving vehicle design to include immobilizers (anti-theft devices) on all new vehicles. Improving new vehicle identification number (VIN plates) labeling to correct deficient aluminum identification plates. Develop education programs aimed at youthful car offenders. Develop education programs for the public to aid in the prevention of motor vehicle theft.
According to the Home Office Police Research Group Briefing Note by Nick Tilley, 40 percent of vehicle related crime occurs in parking lots. This study found that when closed circuit video recording equipment was installed in parking lots in Bradford, Coventry, Hartlepool, Hull, Lewisham, and Wolverhampton in Great Britain, vehicle related crime was reduced. This effectiveness faded over time, but an association was noted between use of this technology with other motor vehicle theft prevention efforts. While vehicle related crime was reduced when this technology was introduced, very few arrests were attributed to the use of closed circuit television due to poor picture quality and lack of police resources to respond to events as they occurred. Public opposition to this effort was not seen in these cities. As a result of this study and others, Great Britain developed the following plan to decrease motor vehicle related crime: � Make car parks (parking lots) more secure through the use of closed circuit television as well as improved access and entry to these lots. � Use decoy (bait) vehicles. � Work with motor vehicle manufacturers to improve vehicle security. � Develop public education programs aimed at victims. � Develop diversion programs for young offenders. � Target professional offenders. � More and better use of forensics to detect offenders While there has not been enough time to analyze the effectiveness of these measures, the studies that Great Britain relied on in the planning phase of this program showed that all of the measures are proven crime reduction techniques. While the United States has the highest number of motor vehicle thefts reported in the world, it does not have the highest rate of motor vehicle theft. Other nations that face similar problems with motor vehicle theft have taken steps to reduce these thefts. While not all of these steps are necessarily applicable to the motor vehicle theft problem in Arizona, some of these steps can be examined and applied where appropriate. Arizona led the nation in motor vehicles stolen per 100,000 people in 2002. This report will look at motor vehicle theft in Arizona, focusing on factors that drive the high motor vehicle theft rate in the state, as well as areas that Arizona can learn from other states and nations.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT IN ARIZONA Reasons for Auto Theft The reasons for motor vehicle theft are generally few. Vehicles are stolen: � To sell the entire vehicle � some vehicles can be sold to unsuspecting buyers both in and out of the state and usually involve VIN switches; some high value vehicles are sold out of country (Mexico and overseas). � To "chop" the entire vehicle for parts � If all the parts are sold separately, they are typically worth more than the whole vehicle, particularly in older vehicles where parts are often not as readily available. Many of these parts end up in unscrupulous body repair shops. � To steal parts such as rims, stereo equipment, high performance engines and equipment etc. - High dollar rims and stereo equipment are desired by individuals who can not afford to buy such items. These are usually hard to trace. Some high performance parts are used in the street racing phenomenon seen nation-wide. � To trade for drugs. � For transportation which includes "commuter theft" � Considered a crime of opportunity. � To commit other crimes such as robberies, transporting drugs, or moving illegal immigrants from the border areas. � To commit insurance fraud � the vehicle is disposed of, often with the help of a co-conspirator and then reported as stolen resulting in a payoff by the insurance company. How Vehicles are Stolen Thieves gain access to vehicles in many ways. Unfortunately, the most common way thieves are able to gain access to a vehicle occurs when the owner does not properly secure their vehicle, often leaving the keys in the ignition and/or the vehicle left running. Thieves have learned to gain access to vehicles using a device known as a "slim jim" to unlock doors or through the use of jiggle keys or master keys. Common tools used in locksmithing are also readily available. In some cases, doors are forced open or windows are broken to gain access to a vehicle. Once inside the vehicle, thieves can hot-wire the car (older vehicles), crack the steering column or damage and/or remove the ignition to allow the vehicle to be started and driven away. Thieves are also able to use ignition key blanks to force the ignition. Many of the items used by auto thieves to aid in the theft of a vehicle can be purchased on the Internet or obtained from local criminal sources. In some instances, the auto thief may resort to towing the vehicle away. At the time of the writing of this report, and readily available from the web site of www.CarMasterKeys.com, individuals are able to purchase a single master key. Currently they sell master keys for Dodge and Chrysler as well as Honda, Nissan and Toyota products at $25 each with complete instructions. Throughout their literature
Arizona Auto Theft Report
they emphasize the point that these keys are made for legitimate uses such as dealerships, rental car agencies, towing/emergency services, body shops, and personal use. They even provide a disclaimer that you must accept prior to placing your order. The disclaimer notes that in Michigan it is a misdemeanor to possess a motor vehicle master key (MCL 750.414a). During the 2003 Arizona legislative session, Senate Bill 1057 was introduced which expanded the definition of burglary in Title 13, Chapter 15 by making possession of more than one master key a crime. It further defined master key as well as manipulation key and included them in the class of burglary tools, a class 6 felony. In addition, the law now includes entry into any part of a motor vehicle using a master or manipulation key to the elements of third degree burglary, a class 4 felony. The legislature passed the bills which have now become law. In addition to selling master keys, www.CarMasterKeys.com also provides links to other sites where one can purchase complete sets of master keys to many other vehicle makes. A search of the Internet revealed a number of companies that either manufacture or sell tools that could be used to gain access to or steal motor vehicles. These sites emphasize that their tools are for legitimate purposes only. In addition, the site also has books and videos for sale on the subject of locksmithing and lock picking. An individual can purchase either a VIN sticker or VIN plate at www.vin-tags.com. The VIN sticker is usually found on the door or strut of a vehicle and sells for $150 (USD). This will also get you six VIN parts stickers. The VIN plate which is normally found on the dash board below the windshield, sells for $350 (USD). Their literature states, "We have mastered methods for reproducing the VIN plate better than anyone in the industry." These are of such quality they will fool anyone unless they know where to look for the secret or confidential VIN numbers located on specific parts of the vehicle. One of the biggest problems law enforcement faces regarding auto theft is in the area of VIN switches that do not involve purchasing VIN plates as listed above. Currently, someone can go to a junk yard and steal or for that matter purchase a VIN plate from a particular model vehicle. They will then steal the same model vehicle and replace that vehicle's VIN plate with the other one. This vehicle will then be left on a street corner or vacant lot for sale. In most cases the price of the vehicle is below market value, appealing to many individuals who need transportation. The transaction is made in cash, leaving the unsuspecting victim with the purchase of a stolen vehicle. Most of the VIN plate switches are done skillfully enough to fool individuals and even law enforcement officers that have not received specialized training. A more recent and disturbing trend is occurring in newer model vehicles with ignition keys that have a microchip intended as an anti-theft device. Auto thieves, spotting new vehicles as potential targets, obtain the vehicle's VIN number which is prominently displayed on every vehicle's dashboard, and then work with an accomplice at a local dealership. The accomplice, with access to a dealership's computer system, can generate a duplicate key which can then be used to drive the vehicle away.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Types and Number of Vehicles Stolen In 2002, of the 56,876 motor vehicles stolen in Arizona, 44,180 were taken in Maricopa County and 8,704 were taken in Pima County. This accounted for 93.0 percent of all the vehicles stolen in Arizona. Pinal County, located between Maricopa and Pima Counties, reported 943 stolen motor vehicles. The border counties of Yuma, Santa Cruz and Cochise reported a total of 1,119 stolen motor vehicles. In 2002, these six of the fifteen counties in Arizona reported 54,946 motor vehicle thefts or 96.6 percent of all stolen vehicles. The types of vehicles stolen vary by city, state, and region. The NICB has compiled Top 10 lists for the United States, for each state, as well as for the major Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). The following chart lists the top ten stolen vehicles for calendar year 2001 and 2002.
Table 3: Top Ten Stolen Vehicles by Location 2001 - 2002 United States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Toyota Camry Honda Accord Honda Civic Oldsmobile Cutlass/Supreme/Ciera Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup Toyota Corolla Ford Taurus Chevrolet Caprice Ford 150 Pickup 2001 Arizona Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup Honda Accord Dodge Ram Pickup Ford 150 Pickup Chevrolet Full Size Extended Cab Pickup Nissan Standard Pickup Nissan Sentra Oldsmobile Cutlass/Supreme/Ciera Honda Civic Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee United States Toyota Camry Honda Accord 2002 Arizona Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup Ford Full Size Pickup (150/250/350) Nissan Sentra Honda Accord Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth Colt Nissan Pickup Honda Civic Dodge Ram Pickup Saturn SL Toyota Camry
Honda Civic Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup Ford Full Size Pickup (150/250/350) Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee Oldsmobile Cutlass/Supreme/Ciera Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan Ford Taurus Toyota Corolla
From National Insurance Crime Bureau
Arizona Auto Theft Report
In 2001 and 2002, pickup trucks dominated the list of most frequently stolen vehicles in Arizona capturing five of the Top 10 positions. Pickup trucks and other large Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) such as the Chevrolet Suburban are used as "load vehicles." "Load vehicles" are intended to transport either illegal immigrants or illegal drugs from Mexico into the United States. Table 4: Top Ten Stolen Vehicles by Location in 2001 Phoenix-Mesa MSA Tucson MSA 1 Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup Dodge Ram Pickup 2 Honda Accord Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee 3 Nissan Standard Pickup Chevrolet Full Size C/K Pickup 4 Chevrolet Full Size Extended Pickup Saturn SL 5 Nissan Sentra Oldsmobile Cutlass/Supreme/Ciera 6 Honda Civic Toyota Camry 7 Ford 150 Pickup Honda Accord 8 Oldsmobile Cutlass/Supreme/Ciera Ford 150 Pickup 9 Dodge Neon Chevrolet Full Size Pickup 10 Dodge Ram Pickup Nissan Sentra
From National Insurance Crime Bureau
One of the hot spots in Arizona to cross the unguarded border is the 2.8 million acre Tohono O'Odham reservation west of Tucson. According to a Denver Post article dated October 20, 2003, regarding illegal immigration and illegal drug smuggling into the United States, reservation police "recovered more than 500 stolen vehicles last year (2002) taken from the suburbs of Phoenix and Tucson to ferry immigrants out of Mexico." In cooperation with federal agents, police also "seized 65,000 pounds of drugs." Load Vehicles As mentioned previously, many vehicles are stolen to transport "loads" across the border from Mexico into the United States. The "loads" can be either illegal immigrants or illegal drugs. In a recent article in The Arizona Republic dated November 28, 2003 Federal agents from Customs and Border Protection, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seized over 14,000 pounds of marijuana near Cockleburr, AZ. The narcotics were found in seven late model trucks and SUVs that had been stolen from San Diego and Phoenix. A Yuma Sun article dated November 27, 2003, noted a stolen Jeep Cherokee was recovered with 429 pounds of marijuana outside Yuma, AZ. The driver was last seen fleeing back into Mexico.
The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) reported on November 8, 2003 a Toyota Camry stolen
in Phoenix was involved in a high speed pursuit and crash in Tucson. The vehicle contained five passengers all believed to be illegal immigrants. The driver was apprehended and the occupants were turned over to the Border Patrol. The Border
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Patrol indicates that on a daily basis they encounter stolen vehicles that are often brand new or rented vehicles used to transport illegal aliens into the United States. The Border Patrol instituted a recent crackdown on human and drug smuggling in Arizona as a result of a high profile case where smugglers were involved in a shootout killing several people on I-10 south of Phoenix. After this incident, over the course of several months the Border Patrol seized 137 vehicles and put another 119 in storage until they can be claimed by their owners. Of this total, six stolen vehicles were recovered. According to an article in The Arizona Republic dated April 15, 2004, "In the world of smuggling, the SUV and extended-cab pickup reign supreme. The big, sturdy vehicles are perfect for the covert transportation of large loads of people and drugs from the Mexican border, and the abundance of SUVs and pickups on Arizona roads makes them easy to steal." They provide low-risk transportation to smugglers, because in the event that the smuggler needs to abandon the vehicle to avoid apprehension, the vehicle cannot be traced back to them. The use of stolen vehicles for smuggling purposes decreases their risk of financial loss. Locations Where Vehicles are Stolen Motor vehicles are stolen from many different locations. Thieves generally prefer large parking lots such as shopping malls. A check of Top 10 Stolen Vehicle locations, as reported by the Phoenix Police Department's Auto Theft Detail, indicated that eight of the 10 locations were mall parking lots or parking lots at large swap meets. Large apartment complex parking lots as well as residential neighborhoods are also locations where vehicles are taken. Vehicles can be taken at any time of day, but thieves prefer large parking lots during daylight hours while residential neighborhoods and apartment complexes are victimized during night time hours. Those vehicles taken at night are not reported until many hours afterward allowing the thief additional time to dispose of the vehicle. Clearance Rate In the National UCR Program, an offense may be cleared by one of two ways: arrest or by exceptional means. In order to be considered cleared by arrest, at least one person must be arrested, charged with the offense and turned over to the court for prosecution. Clearances are based on offenses committed rather than by number arrested, so one arrest may clear multiple offenses or multiple arrests may only clear one offense. In order for an offense to be cleared by exceptional means, the agency must have identified the offender, gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn the offender over to the court for prosecution, identified the offender's exact location and encountered a circumstance outside the control of the law enforcement agency that prohibits arresting, charging and prosecuting the offender. Offenses may be cleared by such events as the death of the offender, the victim's
Arizona Auto Theft Report
refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after identifying the offender, or denial of extradition.
Table 5: Arizona Clearance Rates 1993-2002
1993 1994 Number of Offenses 33,006 41,690 Number Cleared 3,755 4,750 Percent Cleared 11.4% 11.4% From Crime in Arizona reports, 1993 � 2002 1995 47,864 5,653 11.8% 1996 40,073 4,523 11.3% 1997 41,454 4,681 11.3% 1998 39,213 4,860 12.4% 1999 37,409 4,124 11.0% 2000 42,291 4,306 10.5% 2001 51,621 4,881 9.5% 2002 56,654 5,748 10.2%
The clearance rate for motor vehicle theft in Arizona has declined from 11.4 percent in 1993 to 10.2 percent in 2002. The clearance rate for Arizona is consistently lower than the national rate, which has hovered around 14 percent.
Table 6: National Clearance Rates 1993-2002
1993 1994 1995 Number of 1,460,714 1,437,824 1,301,982 Offenses Percent 13.6% 14.0% 14.1% Cleared From Crime in the United States reports, 1993 � 2002 1996 1,132,119 14.0% 1997 1,147,381 14.0% 1998 984,426 14.2% 1999 956,903 14.9% 2000 966,860 14.1% 2001 945,175 13.6% 2002 1,080,048 13.8%
Recovery Rate While only approximately 10 percent of the cases are considered "cleared", the majority of vehicles that are stolen in Arizona are recovered. The recovery rate declined from 68.5 percent in 1993 to 65.2 percent in 2002 (Crime in Arizona annual reports, DPS).
Table 7: Arizona Recovery Rates Locally Stolen Vehicles
1993 1994 1995 Number of 33,006 41,690 47,864 Offenses Locally Stolen 22,617 28,125 33,266 Recovered Percent 68.5% 67.5% 69.5% Recovered Stolen Out of State 895 874 805 Recovered From Crime in Arizona reports, 1993 � 2002 1996 40,073 26,630 66.5% 743 1997 41,454 28,588 69.0% 1,017 1998 39,213 26,122 66.2% 970 1999 37,409 24,980 66.8% 986 2000 42,291 28,362 67.1% 930 2001 51,621 31,786 61.6% 791 2002 56,654 36,932 65.2% 799
The recovery rate for vehicles stolen in Phoenix increased from 58.4 percent in 2001 to 59.5 percent in 2003. However, the increase in the percent of stolen vehicles that were recovered still left the Phoenix Table 8: Phoenix Recovery Rates recovery rate much lower than Locally Stolen Vehicles the state recovery rate. 2001 2002 2003 Number of Offenses 22,580 25,624 25,651 Statewide, the recovery rate in 13,182 15,471 15,264 2002 was 65.2 percent, Locally Stolen Recovered Percent Recovered 58.4% 60.4% 59.5% compared to 60.4 percent in Stolen Out of City Recovered 3,538 4,330 4,004 Phoenix. Phoenix also had a From Phoenix Police Department
Arizona Auto Theft Report
unique issue in that over 25 percent of the vehicles recovered in Phoenix were not stolen in Phoenix, and therefore not included in their recovery rate. The recovery rate for vehicles stolen in Tucson increased from 74.2 percent in 2001 to 79.0 2001 2002 2003 Number of Offenses 5,913 7,164 6,206 percent in 2003. The recovery Locally Stolen Recovered 4,385 5,154 4,900 rate for Tucson remained Percent Recovered 74.2% 71.9% 79.0% consistently higher than the state Stolen Out of City Recovered 388 500 474 recovery rate and the recovery From Arizona Department of Public Safety rate for Phoenix. In 2002, Phoenix had a recovery rate of 59.5 percent, and Arizona had a statewide recovery rate of 65.2 percent, compared to 79.0 percent in Tucson. Table 9: Tucson Recovery Rates Locally Stolen Vehicles When vehicles are recovered, some are found to have been partially or completely stripped. Recovered vehicles are often reported as having damage to door locks, steering columns and ignitions. Some recovered vehicles have been burned to cover evidence of other crimes. In addition, some vehicles are located with their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) plate missing. This can indicate a possible case of either insurance fraud or a case of a VIN switch with another vehicle. Some stolen vehicles are taken across the border into Mexico where the chances of recovery are very slim. The exact number of vehicles taken across the border is difficult to ascertain, as are the number of vehicles recovered in Mexico. The Arizona Daily Star highlighted this problem in a November 10th, 2003 article citing the US Consulate in Nogales as assisting in the return of a substantial number of vehicles to the United States in 2002. Little research has been conducted on the relationship between motor vehicle theft and the U.S./Mexico border. A 1987 study by Michael Miller appeared in the Fall issue of the Journal of Borderlands Studies, examining theft numbers as well as motor vehicle theft rates among the top 20 cities in Texas based upon 1986 data. Of the top 20, four cities are situated along the Texas/Mexico border (Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, and El Paso). Brownsville was number five for theft rate behind Fort Worth, Houston, Dallas and Grand Prairie. However, when comparing Table 10: Recovery Rates in 1986 recovery rates, the four border cites were Texas Border Cities well below the statewide recovery rate of Recovery Rate 61.2 percent. In addition, all four cities had Texas Statewide 61.2% the lowest clearance rates in Texas. Texas Brownsville 10.7% had an overall average clearance rate of 16 McAllen 14.8% percent while Brownsville had a three percent Laredo 24.6% rate. Miller clearly states his case that there is El Paso 39.0% a direct correlation between auto thefts and From Journal of Borderland Studies, Fall 1987 the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S./International Borders
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Stolen vehicles are also shipped out of country where the chances for recovery are very remote. In September 2003, the NICB reported the seizure of 12 stolen, luxury vehicles in Antwerp, Belgium. These vehicles were shipped from Baltimore, Maryland with a final destination of Nigeria, Africa. The vehicles were valued at more than $700,000 and included Cadillac Escalades, BMWs, Lincoln Navigators, and a Mercedes. Ten similar vehicles were recovered earlier in 2003 in Baltimore prior to being shipped out of the country. These are just two examples of the problems faced by law enforcement particularly in cities with major sea ports. The NICB and the North American Export Committee (NAEC) believe over 200,000 stolen vehicles are illegally exported out of the country each year for resale overseas. The complexity of shipping stolen vehicles out of the country is usually associated with professional gangs or organized crime. Chop Shops Although it is generally thought that chop shops are usually in commercial areas sometimes labeled as "junk yards", they can also appear in residential neighborhoods as illustrated by a recent incident in Glendale. On January 8, 2004, Glendale Police Officers responding to a complaint from a neighbor, recovered about $150,000 worth of parts from an estimated 25 to 30 cars in the home and back yard of a residence in the 7300 block of North 46th Avenue. In addition, four stolen vehicles and a motorcycle were also found in the back yard. The Glendale Police Department discovered another chop shop in their jurisdiction during this same month. This time an officer was attempting to locate a stolen Acura by using the vehicle's locating device. The signal led the officer to the 6900 block of Grand Avenue where he not only found the Acura but seven other stolen vehicles as well as numerous parts that had been stripped from other vehicles. It was estimated the stolen property was worth $200,000. Chop shops are a major issue throughout Arizona. In 2001, Phoenix Police recovered about $117,000 worth of parts and vehicles at a west Phoenix home. In these chop shops, stolen vehicles are stripped for parts, then the vehicle is typically dumped in the surrounding neighborhood. While these dumped vehicles can then be recovered by police, they are often a total loss to the victim. In this crime, the end recipient may not even know that the parts that they purchase from the chop shop, or from their local mechanic, are from a stolen vehicle. Chop shops are just one component of the motor vehicle theft problem in Arizona.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Extent of Motor Vehicle Theft Arizona has the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the United States in 2002, both when ranked by population and when ranked by the number of registered vehicles in the state. However, the gap between Arizona and Nevada narrows considerably when comparing the number of vehicles stolen to the number of registered vehicles as opposed to by population. (See Appendix B for full comparison of motor vehicle theft rate per 100,000 registered vehicles by state.)
Table 11: Comparison of Motor Vehicle Thefts Registered Vehicles and Population for 2002 Per 100,000 Per Total State Thefts Registered 100,000 Vehicles* Vehicles Residents Arizona 57,668 4,158,686 1,386.7 1,056.9 Nevada 17,486 1,288,777 1,356.8 804.5 Hawaii 9,910 913,137 1,085.3 796.0 Colorado 23,183 2,151,757 1,077.4 514.4 Maryland 34,020 3,940,748 863.3 623.3 Washington 40,493 5,470,538 740.2 667.2 California 222,364 30,154,029 737.4 633.2 Texas 102,680 14,899,250 689.2 471.4 Missouri 27,878 4,299,210 648.4 491.5 Florida 88,516 14,309,086 618.6 529.6
*From the U.S. Department of Transportation, includes automobiles, buses, trucks and motorcycles.
Rank by Registered Vehicles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rank by Population 1 2 3 8 6 4 5 11 10 7
Using the number of registered vehicles as a base provides a method for a direct comparison between the number of thefts and the number of motor vehicles in a state. While applying this standard, Arizona still ranks number one. The separation between Arizona and two neighboring states, Nevada and Colorado, narrows considerably. The three states with the highest motor vehicle theft rates per capita, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii retain the same rank regardless of whether they are ranked by population or registered vehicles, all other vehicles on the two top ten lists see a shift in rank.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Following is a map depicting each state by rank, as calculated by motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 residents. As is shown on the map and the preceding table, Arizona has the highest number of motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 residents in the nation. (See Appendix C for the supporting data.) Map 1: U.S. Vehicle Theft 2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The following table shows the number of registered vehicles in Arizona from 1998 to 2003. The total number of registered vehicles in Arizona increased 20.7 percent during this time period. Maricopa County experienced a 22.7 percent increase while Pima County had a 15.2 percent increase in registered vehicles. Maricopa County had 56.6 percent of all registered motor vehicles in 2003, while Pima County had 14.5 percent. Table 12: Registered Vehicles in Arizona* 1998 �2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 48,874 51,974 56,729 57,777 61,288 115,658 118,695 126,524 130,644 130,777 114,668 116,342 122,280 122,579 126,292 63,461 63,281 65,897 67,652 69,773 27,073 27,443 28,656 29,254 29,173 10,534 10,174 10,436 10,296 9,897 24,746 24,779 26,443 27,088 27,907 2,235,232 2,336,913 2,477,063 2,648,559 2,662,006 176,242 181,463 194,118 202,708 212,074 84,422 85,560 91,735 94,813 99,438 611,398 629,962 664,135 684,396 687,668 149,198 150,021 156,240 158,907 160,602 39,895 41,103 45,200 47,583 46,679 185,843 190,671 204,257 216,416 224,612 126,743 131,195 137,285 140,733 142,679 4,013,987 4,159,576 4,407,098 4,639,405 4,690,865
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total
2003 64,225 134,753 130,398 71,294 29,664 9,747 29,426 2,742,367 224,921 103,996 704,394 165,676 48,088 235,437 149,786 4,844,172
*From the Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, includes all registered vehicles. This is a point in time report from June 30th of each year, except 1998, which was done July 5th.
With the exception of Greenlee County, all counties in Arizona saw an increase in registered vehicles from 1998 to 2003. Rural counties in Arizona saw an increase of 21.0 percent in registered vehicles between 1998 and 2003, while urban counties had a similar increase of 20.6 percent. However, when the increase between 2002 and 2003 registered vehicles is compared, the rural counties had a substantially higher increase at 4.3 percent than the urban counties at 2.9 percent. The county with the largest increase in both time frames was Mohave County, while Greenlee County experienced a decrease in both time frames.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The following map shows the percentage of change from 2001-2002 reported motor vehicle theft in each county in Arizona. Apache and Graham Counties experienced the largest increase in reported motor vehicle theft between 2001 and 2002, while Pima and Cochise Counties experienced the largest decrease. Map 2: AZ Vehicle Theft Percent Change 2001-2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The total number of motor vehicle thefts reported in Arizona increased 43.5 percent from 1998 to 2002. Maricopa County experienced a 49.3 percent increase in motor vehicle theft reports, while Pima County experienced a 14.4 percent increase in reported motor vehicle theft. Table 13: Motor Vehicle Theft* 1998 - 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 11 17 25 13 367 391 471 436 225 242 242 320 87 57 92 84 43 32 49 24 0 1 0 1 35 31 34 39 29,598 28,814 31,868 38,478 434 400 497 513 105 121 115 128 7,609 6,543 7,859 9,746 356 470 794 884 225 130 168 185 341 282 367 477 169 293 479 505 39,605 37,824 43,060 51,833
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total
2002 24 376 371 108 36 1 48 44,180 638 115 8,704 943 177 553 566 56,840
*Pinal and Yuma County Sheriff's Offices did not report data for some years. From Crime in Arizona Reports, 1998 � 2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The following map represents the rate of motor vehicle theft in 2002 per 100,000 residents in each county. Counties with high urban concentrations showed the highest motor vehicle theft rates, as is evidenced by the high rates in Maricopa and Pima County. Map 3: AZ Vehicle Theft Reported Crime 2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Maricopa and Pima Counties had the highest rates of motor vehicle theft per 100,000 registered vehicles in 2002 with rates of 1,659.7 and 1,265.7, respectively. Of the vehicles stolen in the state of Arizona, 77.7 percent are stolen from Maricopa County and 15.3 percent are stolen from Pima County. The remaining 7.0 percent of motor vehicle thefts occurred in the other 13 counties. This is indicative of the trend of motor vehicle theft primarily occurring in urban rather than rural areas.
Table 14: Motor Vehicle Theft Rates By County for 2002 Per 100,000 Total Per 100,000 Registered Vehicles Residents Vehicles 61,288 39.2 34.2 130,777 287.5 303.1 126,292 293.8 295.8 69,773 154.8 203.7 29,173 123.4 105.7 9,897 10.1 11.6 27,907 172.0 235.7 2,662,006 1,659.7 1,340.3 212,074 300.8 383.3 99,438 115.6 113.2 687,668 1,265.7 977.4 160,602 587.2 490.1 46,679 379.2 444.3 224,612 246.2 306.8 142,679 396.7 333.4
Theft Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 24 376 371 108 36 1 48 44,180 638 115 8,704 943 177 553 566
Total Population 70,105 124,040 125,420 53,015 34,070 8,605 20,365 3,296,250 166,465 101,615 890,545 192,395 39,840 180,260 169,760
*Due to rounding, total does not add up to 100.0 percent. From Crime in Arizona Reports, 2002 and the Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, includes all registered vehicles.
Percent of State Theft* 0.04% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.002% 0.1% 77.7% 1.1% 0.2% 15.3% 1.7% 0.3% 1.0% 1.0%
2003 Preliminary Data Arizona experienced a 6.9 percent statewide decrease in motor vehicle theft from January through June 2003 when compared to January through June 2002. Preliminary data shows that this trend continued throughout 2003. This decrease in motor vehicle theft reports is at a time when the rest of the Western United States experienced a 7.2 percent increase in motor vehicle theft, and the United States as a whole experienced a 0.9 percent increase. From 2001 to 2002, motor vehicle theft reports in Arizona increased 10.5 percent. Of cities in which data is currently available for the time period of January through June 2003, Phoenix, the largest city in Arizona, saw a 4.2 percent decrease in motor vehicle theft, while the cities of Glendale, Mesa and Tempe also posted notable decreases. Chandler and Gilbert reported an increase in motor vehicle theft during the same period.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
From Department of Public Safety and preliminary FBI report (www.fbi.gov/uce/2003/03semimaps.pdf)
Table 15: Six Month Comparison Motor Vehicle Theft Reports 2002 and 2003 January January Difference June 2002 June 2003 State Total 28,145 26,202 -6.9% Selected Cities Chandler 693 711 2.6% Gilbert 213 274 28.6% Glendale 1,886 1,710 -9.3% Mesa 2,761 2,151 -22.1% Phoenix 12,623 12,099 -4.2% Tempe 1,515 1,219 -19.5% Preliminary National Reports Western U.S. +7.2% United States +0.9%
A February 6, 2004 article in The Arizona Republic stated "A total of 1,943 fewer vehicles were stolen during the first half of last year than in the first six months of 2002, when 28,145 were swiped." in reference to the decrease in motor vehicle theft during the first half of 2003. COST OF MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Monetary Loss Motor vehicle theft is a property crime with far reaching effects. A 1988 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report noted that certain minority groups, younger adults, those living in apartments or in urban areas, and those with low income are the most likely to be victimized by auto theft. In addition, they noted that "those least likely to experience motor vehicle theft included those 55 and older, people living in their own homes and those living in rural areas." The report further notes that when a "motor vehicle is stolen, its theft causes inconvenience to household members, time is lost from work, and household spending is effected." Clarke and Harris in "Auto Theft and Its Prevention" (1992) consider the costs to auto theft victims from "two perspectives: direct costs to victims and other social costs." Other than the cost of the stolen vehicle, it is hard to quantify the true economic loss endured by the victims. In addition, the theft of vehicles is reflected in Arizona automobile insurance rates, particularly where motor vehicle theft is rampant. The Arizona Insurance Information Association (AIIA) has indicated the cost of the comprehensive portion (theft, vandalism and glass) of automobile insurance is $43 more in Arizona than the same coverage nationally. Further economic loss is incurred by the taxpayer when the criminal justice system comes into play. The costs for law enforcement, prosecution, the court system,
Arizona Auto Theft Report
and corrections on a yearly basis are considerable. Many feel this money could be better spent on violent crimes such as domestic violence or at the least, on other public programs. The following two tables show the direct economic loss to victims caused by motor vehicle theft in Arizona and in the United States. The economic loss is estimated by multiplying the number of vehicles stolen by the average vehicle value of the vehicles stolen. From 1992 to 2002, economic loss caused by motor vehicle theft in Arizona increased 186.2 percent, compared to 10.0 percent in the United States.
Table 16: Economic Loss in Arizona* Motor Vehicle Theft 1992-2002 Number of Estimated Total Average Value Vehicles Stolen Economic Loss 30,849 $4,273 $131,818,394 33,374 $4,147 $138,388,628 41,920 $4,496 $188,468,966 48,019 $4,590 $220,424,017 40,606 $4,819 $195,660,417 42,924 $5,201 $223,267,040 39,605 $5,657 $224,051,030 37,824 $6,084 $230,112,895 43,060 $6,183 $266,244,286 51,833 $6,229 $322,852,725 56,876 $6,633 $377,268,746
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
*From Crime in Arizona annual reports, 1992-2002
The average value of the vehicles stolen increased 42.2 percent nationally and 55.2 percent in Arizona. The number of vehicles stolen decreased 22.6 percent in the United States while increasing 8.4 percent in Arizona from 1992 to 2002.
Table 17: Economic Loss in the United States* Motor Vehicle Theft 1992-2002 Number of Estimated Total Average Value Vehicles Stolen Economic Loss 1,610,834 $4,713 $7,591,860,642 1,563,060 $4,808 $7,515,192,480 1,539,287 $4,940 $7,604,077,780 1,472,441 $5,129 $7,552,149,889 1,394,238 $5,372 $7,489,846,536 1,354,189 $5,416 $7,334,287,624 1,242,781 $6,030 $7,493,969,430 1,152,075 $6,104 $7,032,265,800 1,160,002 $6,682 $7,751,133,364 1,228,391 $6,646 $8,163,886,586 1,246,096 $6,701 $8,350,089,296
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
*From Crime in the United States reports, 1992-2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
VICTIM IMPACT Interviews were conducted with eight victims of motor vehicle theft during 2003 to give a snapshot of the impact that motor vehicle theft has on victims. Victims were recommended by insurance companies who had obtained permission from the victims prior to releasing information for interviews. All interviews were conducted by phone in December 2003. Please note that names have been changed to protect the anonymity of the victims. Interview #1 � Julia When Julia left her condominium in North Phoenix for work at 6:45 a.m. in May of 2003, she discovered that her 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 Sport had been stolen. She had last seen her truck the previous night at 10:30 p.m. Julia said she felt devastated and started crying. She also related that she felt as if she had been violated because someone took something from her. She is a single parent with four children with the youngest being two years-old. This truck was more than a vehicle; it was what fueled their life. Julia takes her four children to three different schools in the morning and then across town to work. In the evening she also attends college studying nursing and takes the children to school events such as cheerleading for her daughters. Inside the truck were things that belonged to the children, like a walkman, CDs, a car seat, lawn chairs and most importantly photographs of the children that Julia kept on the sun visor. When Julia called the police, they told her that due to the make and model of the vehicle, it was probably already in Mexico or would be there shortly. They did not send an officer to her house but completed the report over the telephone. They gave her a phone number to call in 10 days to see if her property had been recovered. Her insurance did not settle the claim for 10 days. That meant that for 10 days, she had to rely on the generosity of others for her and her family's transportation needs. When the insurance settled her claim, they paid her what they termed as "fair market value" minus her $500 deductible. The problem was that she owed about $3,000 more than the insurance gave her. So she not only lost her truck but she had to pay for the remaining balance on the loan and she was still without a vehicle. In October 2003 after paying off the previous loan, Julia bought a 1997 Chevrolet Suburban. She is currently making payments on her new vehicle and will do so for about four more years. Julia stated that she did not take any security precautions with her Dodge Ram but has taken several precautions with her Suburban. Julia uses an anti-theft steering wheel locking device and she did not remove the security stickers left on the Suburban by the previous owner. She related that in January 2004 she was going to get the vehicle identification number etched into the Suburban windows as well as registering her vehicle with the "Watch Your Car" program from the Arizona Auto Theft Authority where the vehicle owner authorizes the police to stop their vehicle if seen on the road after a designated time.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Six months after the theft, Julia still misses her Dodge Ram Truck. The thing that upsets her most is that whoever stole her truck had to have known by the child car seat in the truck that it was owned by a family with children. Not only did they hurt her but also the children. Interview #2 � Sandy In early April 2003, Sandy left her condominium in northwest Phoenix to discover that her truck had been broken into. She checked the truck and only noticed that some CDs were missing. Due to the shortage of covered parking at Sandy's apartment complex her boyfriend and she alternated parking her truck and her 1998 Nissan Altima in the assigned covered parking. While driving the truck to work, Sandy started to think about the Altima and checked the truck's console for the spare set of keys kept there. They were gone. She called her boyfriend and asked him if he had removed the keys from the truck but he related he had not. She asked him to check if the car was still at the complex. When her boyfriend said the car was gone, Sandy said she felt sick to her stomach and had to pull off to the side of the road. After a minute, she returned home and contacted the police. Sandy related an officer arrived in about an hour and initiated a police report. The officer told her that they recover quite a few stolen vehicles and assured them they would find it. Sandy called her insurance company. She had purchased the rental car option in her policy which started after she paid the deductible. She stated there was a great deal of inconvenience contacting her insurance company, attaining the rental car, and filing a claim. She also had to purchase a new child car seat which was in the stolen vehicle. Other things left inside the vehicle included baby toys, and CDs. They also fell behind on many of their bills due to having to pay their $500 deductible. About 2 weeks after the theft, Sandy's vehicle was recovered. The police called her and related that her vehicle was involved in a high-speed chase with law enforcement. During the chase the driver left the car at 19th Avenue and Peoria Drive and fled. He was not apprehended by the police. Sandy immediately went to the scene and retrieved her car. The entire inside of the car needed to be steam cleaned and the back seat required reupholstering. The car was also returned with a small amount of marijuana in the door side pouch. The front bumper and mirror needed to be repainted and the ignition and doors were rekeyed. After their experience, Sandy and her boyfriend moved away. They no longer keep vehicle keys inside a vehicle and always park in their garage. Interview #3 � Jack When Jack left his house in Prescott for work at 6:00 a.m. in August of 2003 he discovered his restored 1972 Chevrolet Nova had been stolen from his driveway. Jack had last seen his car the previous night at about 10:00 p.m. before going to bed. At
Arizona Auto Theft Report
first, Jack said he was confused and shocked. He began thinking about where he parked his Nova. After a few minutes, the reality struck him that someone had stolen his car. Anger set in as he wondered why someone would take from him something that he had built. Jack had put in over $15,000 of time and new parts to restore the Nova. When he called the police at about 8:00 a.m., they came to his residence and took a report. At about 2:00 p.m. the same day, he was notified that his car had been found about 14 miles from his house in a wooded area. The bad news was that the tires, steering wheel, carburetor and several other parts had been removed from the car. The car had also been set on fire - this meant it was a total loss. The insurance estimate of the Nova's value was not as high as Jack's opinion of what it was worth. Fortunately, because Jack has another car and a motorcycle, this theft did not bring any transportation hardships. Since the theft, Jack has purchased a 1991 Chevrolet Corvette to replace the Nova. Jack had never used any security precautions other than locking his door when he had the Nova. He has now installed an alarm system in the Corvette to help prevent it from being stolen. Interview #4 � Gary Gary is an independent vendor servicing valley grocery stores and his vehicle theft experience created a great deal of stress and hardship, economically and emotionally. In late October of 2003, at 7:30 a.m., he parked his 2002 Ford E-550 Cargo Van behind a grocery store at Tatum Avenue and Shea Boulevard to unload his merchandise inside the store. When he returned to his truck 5 or 10 minutes later, his vehicle and its contents had been stolen. Gary felt helpless and utterly alone when he discovered his livelihood had been stolen. He said, "It was as if someone had stolen my heart." Inside the van was about $600 of merchandise, a cell phone, 2 computers (worth about $2,000 each) and a computer printer (worth $1,700). When he contacted the Phoenix police, they informed him that they would not take a report without a license plate number. Since he had no transportation, he had to borrow a car and return to his residence to retrieve the needed information. When he called the police back, he could only leave a message. They returned his call at approximately 1:30 p.m. and took the report. Shortly after contacting the police, he called his insurance company. He believed he had the rental car option on his policy. However, when he transferred his insurance from Minnesota the agent did not transfer the rental car option so he was left without a paid rental vehicle. A rental van cost him $450 a week for the next 5 weeks. Gary's van was found at the end of November 2003 in the vicinity of 38th Street and Camelback. The merchandise inside was gone, as well as the cell phone, computers and printer. The tires has been damaged, the van's tie-rods needed to be replaced and there was graffiti on the outside of the van. When he finally repaired and cleaned his van, Gary installed an alarm system that automatically locks all doors and, if someone
Arizona Auto Theft Report
does try to steal it, the van shuts down when the brake is pressed. Gary's life has changed also. He is constantly aware of his surroundings wherever he is and extremely security conscious at home. His claim is still not closed but this theft has cost him over $5,000 to date. Interview #5 � Robert When Robert's wife left their apartment in northeast Phoenix to take their nephew to school at 7:00 a.m. in mid-August of 2003 she discovered their 1994 Ford Crown Victoria had been stolen. When Robert's wife told him of the theft, his first reaction and feeling was anger. Especially, since the apartment complex where Robert lives was resurfacing the parking lot and asked all residents to park their vehicles in another location. He felt that if he had not moved the vehicle, it may not have been stolen. Robert had last seen his Ford the previous night at about 12:00 a.m. before going to bed. Robert immediately contacted the police who took a report over the phone. His insurance company informed him that he did not have the rental car option on his policy but provided him with financial assistance in attaining a rental car. The insurance company settled the claim after 30 days. However, the insurance company estimate of the Ford's value was less than Robert's. Since he kept this car in premium condition he believed it was worth more than the insurance company estimate. Inside the Crown Victoria were a child car seat, portable CD player, CDs, tools, a baby carriage, and a roadside emergency kit. Robert and his wife needed to replace all of these things. The theft caused some economic and emotional hardship as well. The Ford was Robert's wife's primary means of transportation. For three days, this loss created a great deal of difficulty in getting Robert to work and having a car available for his wife and child to use. Another hardship was the cost and effort of finding a replacement vehicle equal to the value of the Ford with only the money the insurance company gave him. Before, Robert never used any additional security devices on his vehicle other than locking the doors. Now, he has installed an alarm system in his 1994 Cadillac Deville as well as using a steering wheel locking device to prevent this car from being stolen. Interview #6 � John On Labor Day, 2003 at 5:00 a.m., John left his house in the southeast Valley to discover his 1977 Chevrolet pick-up truck and attached trailer had been stolen. He remembers seeing the truck the previous night at about 12:00 a.m. When he realized someone had stolen his truck, his first reaction was a feeling of irritation. John related that he had searched for six months for this truck and he only had it for two months. He wondered, "How could someone take it from me?" When he called the police a short time later, they took a report over the phone. The police called John at 10:00 a.m. and informed him that his truck and trailer had been
Arizona Auto Theft Report
located in an industrial park in Phoenix. The individual who stole the truck left it parked, running and overheating. A passerby called the fire department about an overheated vehicle which alerted the police. John had to repair the door lock, ignition and steering column in the truck. There were several tools and automotive accessories stolen from the trailer which he also had to replace. His insurance agent responded quickly. John's policy had a $500 deductible for the truck, the trailer and the trailer's contents. Therefore, the economic impact of the theft was the $1,500 he had to pay to repair the truck and replace the stolen items. Since this was not his primary vehicle, there was no hardship with regard to transportation. Before, John never used any additional security devices on his truck other than locking the doors. Now, he uses a steering wheel lock to prevent his vehicle from being stolen again. Interview #7 - David When David returned to his home from playing golf on Labor Day, he found a card on the door of his house asking him to call the Mesa Police Department. When he called the number on the card, he learned that his 2003 Honda Civic had been stolen. David said he felt violated and then felt angry. Inside the car were a 12 disk CD changer and an expensive after-market stereo system. When he contacted the Mesa police and provided information about the theft, he was informed that the Chandler police had located the vehicle but it was a total loss. David was fortunate in that he had primary insurance coverage and additional "gap coverage" through the credit union that financed the car. The gap insurance paid the difference between the insurance company's "fair market value" and the loan balance. With this extra insurance and another vehicle at his disposal, David did not experience the typical economic or other hardships associated with a vehicle theft. David did not use any other theft precautions on the Honda but now he has an alarm system on his current car. Interview #8 � Kristen On the morning of March 16, 2004, Kristen discovered that her vehicle had been stolen from her driveway. As a first grade teacher on a limited budget and single mother, the loss of the vehicle was made more difficult by the fact that $500 in repairs had been made to the vehicle the day before. After calling for a ride to work, Kristen called the police department to file a report. Kristen was well aware of the procedure and was able to make the necessary arrangements quickly. She started a claim with her auto insurance company and reserved a rental vehicle. While she was able to get to her classroom on time for school, her mind was preoccupied with the fact that her property had been stolen again. The same car had been stolen two years ago (almost to the exact day). After a week, it was found at a local grocery store with no damage. The insurance company had covered 100 percent of the rental car making the first theft an inconvenience, but not a monetary loss. The same day that the vehicle was recovered Kristen purchased a
Arizona Auto Theft Report
steering wheel locking device. The following morning, when she went to her car to leave for work, she found the door ajar and the steering wheel lying on the floor of the car with the steering wheel locking device still attached. This attempted theft cost her another week without a vehicle and a $500 deductible. While attempting to maintain normalcy throughout the day, she reminded herself that no one had been injured and that the vehicle was an old one. However, that old vehicle was the product of five years spent paying it off on a tight budget. She realized that given the age of the vehicle, if it was not recovered, she would not receive enough from the insurance company to purchase another vehicle. That left her with the possibility of car payments again. She was relieved that she had decided to keep full coverage on the vehicle even though it was old because it meant that the rental car would be paid for by the insurance company. At 11:15 a.m. on the same day the car was stolen, the Phoenix Police Department called with news that the vehicle had been recovered. They had apprehended the thieves in the vehicle and recovered the vehicle undamaged. It was the best possible resolution. However, the police told Kristen that she would now have to be careful because there was information about where she lived and worked that had been stolen from the vehicle. Kristen retrieved her vehicle that afternoon to find a new difficulty. All of her belongings had been stolen, including her class notes from the graduate school courses she was taking. This added another level of frustration as the notes were of immense value to her, but worthless to anyone else. Victim Interview Summary These victims all experienced the trauma and hardship that all too often accompanies motor vehicle theft. While motor vehicle theft is classified by many as a "property" crime, many victims experience a loss in their livelihood and a decline in their feeling of well-being when a vehicle is stolen. Victims often experience financial loss, even if the vehicle is recovered or if the vehicle is insured. The loss of transportation and the sense of violation brought by the theft often have a long lasting emotional impact on victims. Far from being a victimless crime, the victims of motor vehicle theft are victimized by the theft of their vehicle, the loss of a sense of security, and the necessity of changing the way they live in order to prevent future theft. OFFENDERS Demographics Motor vehicles are stolen by both males and females although males are predominately the perpetrators. In Arizona during 2002, 5,131 persons were arrested for motor vehicle theft compared to 4,465 in 2001. Males accounted for 4,237 arrests, or 82.6 percent, and females for 894 arrests or 17.4 percent. Females went from committing 15.7 percent of the total crimes in 2001 to 17.4 percent in 2002. The crimes are committed by both adults and juveniles. Of those arrested in 2002, 3,922 were adults and 1,209
Arizona Auto Theft Report
were juveniles. Of the juveniles arrested, 80.6 percent were males and 19.4 percent were female. Many auto thieves in Arizona start stealing vehicles as juveniles as a result of gang participation and peer pressure. Table 18: Motor Vehicle Theft by Gender 2001-2002 Arizona*
GENDER Male Female Total ADULT 2,747 85.2% 478 14.8% 3,225 2001 JUVENILE 1,015 81.9% 225 18.1% 1,240 TOTAL 3,762 84.3% 703 15.7% 4,465 ADULT 3,263 83.2% 659 16.8% 3,922 2002 JUVENILE 974 80.6% 235 19.4% 1,209 TOTAL 4,237 82.6% 894 17.4% 5,131
*From Crime in Arizona reports, 2001 and 2002
Of the total persons arrested for auto theft in Arizona during 2002, 89.0 percent were White, 7.9 percent were Black, 2.8 percent were American Indian/Alaskan native, 0.3 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. This total does not separate out Hispanics as a separate category. For this reason a breakdown of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic arrests is given in a separate table. The following table shows an arrest break down by race for 2001 and 2002 for motor vehicle theft in Arizona. Table 19: Motor Vehicle Theft by Race 2001-2002 Arizona*
RACE White Black Indian Asian Total ADULT 2,738 84.9% 407 12.6% 72 2.2% 8 0.2% 3,225 2001 JUVENILE 1,078 86.9% 93 7.5% 64 5.2% 5 0.4% 1,240 TOTAL 3,816 85.5% 500 11.2% 136 3.0% 13 0.3% 4,465 ADULT 3,490 89.0% 312 8.0% 107 2.7% 13 0.3% 3,922 2002 JUVENILE 1,075 88.9% 94 7.8% 36 3.0% 4 0.3% 1,209 TOTAL 4,565 89.0% 406 7.9% 143 2.8% 17 0.3% 5,131
*From Crime in Arizona reports, 2001 and 2002
The following table gives a national breakdown of motor vehicle theft by race in the United States. Table 20: Motor Vehicle Theft by Race 2001-2002 United States*
RACE White Black Indian Asian Total ADULT 40,018 58.0% 27,113 39.3% 515 0.7% 1,315 1.9% 68,961 2001 JUVENILE 18,851 56.3% 13,693 40.9% 410 1.2% 547 1.6% 33,501 TOTAL 58,869 57.5% 40,806 39.8% 925 0.9% 1,862 1.8% 102,462 ADULT 45,676 61.3% 26,686 35.8% 711 1.0% 1,471 2.0% 74,544 2002 JUVENILE 18,949 57.9% 12,428 38.0% 665 2.0% 665 2.0% 32,707 TOTAL 64,625 60.3% 39,114 36.5% 1,376 1.3% 2,136 2.0% 107,251
*From Crime in the United States reports, 2001 and 2002
Arizona Auto Theft Report
In 2002, 43.1 percent of all motor vehicle theft arrests in Arizona were Hispanic, while 56.9 percent were non-Hispanic. Among juveniles, 52.6 percent of those arrested for motor vehicle theft were Hispanic, while among adults 40.1 percent were Hispanic. Table 21: Motor Vehicle Theft Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Breakdown 2001-2002 Arizona*
Hispanic Non-Hispanic Total ADULT 1,195 37.1% 2,030 62.9% 3,225 2001 JUVENILE 592 47.7% 648 52.3% 1,240 TOTAL 1,787 40.0% 2,678 60.0% 4,465 ADULT 1,574 40.1% 2,348 59.9% 3,922
*From Crime in Arizona Reports, 2001 and 2002
According to Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review (2003), motor vehicle theft arrests decreased by 44 percent for those under 18 years old, but increased 119 percent for those 18 and older. This covers the 10-year period from 1991 to 2001. The percentage breakdown of offenders arrested for motor vehicle theft is comparable between Arizona and the United States, with the exception of Arizona has a higher percentage of juveniles arrested for motor vehicle theft. Table 22: Motor Vehicle Theft Arrests by Age 2002 Arizona United States Number Percent Number Percent and Under 306 6.0% 8,227 7.7% � 17 903 17.6% 24,317 22.7% � 21 1,215 23.7% 24,874 23.2% � 24 621 12.1% 10,976 10.2% � 29 678 13.2% 11,525 10.8% � 34 573 11.2% 9,745 9.1% - 39 425 8.3% 8,067 7.5% � 44 231 4.5% 5,213 4.9% � 49 111 2.2% 2,582 2.4% � 54 38 0.7% 1,048 1.0% � 59 18 0.4% 395 0.4% � 64 6 0.1% 134 0.1% and over 6 0.1% 84 0.1%
14 15 18 22 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
*From Arizona Crime Trends and Crime in the United States 2002
Although there are a large number of research projects, books, and articles on crime, crime prevention, offenders, etc. there has been very little research conducted on the subject of auto theft related to offenders (auto thieves). In 1994, Robert R. Reinertsen and Victor D. Lofgreen of Western Illinois University completed a paper titled, Research
Arizona Auto Theft Report
in Motor Vehicle Prevention: Identifying Strategies that Work. The project was
commissioned by the Illinois Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Council. The project involved in depth interviews of 50 convicted adult felons at three correctional facilities in the state of Illinois. The 50 individuals were selected from an initial pool of 237 career auto theft offenders. The Reinertsen and Lofgreen study was comprised of 78 percent Black males with an average age of 29 year, 4 months, who reported stealing an average of 32 vehicles since turning 18 with a mean of 2.8 Table 23: Reasons for Stealing Motor Vehicles Juvenile Adult arrests and 1.4 convictions. The Money for "High Living" 56% 56% average reported age for the first Excitement 40% 16% time the subjects had stolen a Peer Pressure 38% vehicle was 16.9 years old, with Money for Day to Day Living 38% 46% most subjects admitting to Transportation 8% significant drug and alcohol abuse, Support Drug Habit 18% 44% and almost half admitting to being Support Drinking Problem 8% 14% Reputation 20% 4% gang members.
Sake of Appearances
The offenders in this study were asked why they stole vehicles when they were a juvenile and when they were an adult. The largest motivation for both age groups was to obtain money for "high living".
From Research in Motor Vehicle Prevention: Identifying Strategies that
The offenders questioned generally indicated that they broke into vehicles by breaking the door lock, using a "slim jim", or by breaking or pulling a window back (86 percent used one of these methods). Of the group, 66 percent said they were able to disarm an auto alarm system. A large number of the offenders stole the vehicles to strip and sell for parts (40 percent), followed by driving around (18 percent), selling whole (16 percent), delivering to a chop shop (10 percent), delivering to a specific person who "ordered" a particular make and model or taken to a preset location (10 percent), and using the vehicle to commit another crime (3 percent).
The British Crime Survey of 1996 written by Mirrlees-Black, Mayhew and Percy made
some very significant findings. They noted that "cars parked in public car parks (parking lots) were four times more likely to be stolen than those parked in the street outside the owner's home or work and 40 percent more at risk than when parked in some other streets. They were 200 times more at risk than cars parked in a garage at home." There is no comparable U.S. data. The British have addressed this problem by "hardening" or making parking lots more secure and through the use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV).
Arizona Auto Theft Report
A 1994 study by the British Home Office titled, "Car Theft: The Offender's Perspective" reflects many of the findings by Reinertsen and Lofgreen. The British study consisted of interviews of 100 car thieves of whom 98 were male. The group as a whole ranged in ages of 14 to 35 years with 69 percent under age 21. Some of the key points of the British research are as follows: � Most of the 100 offenders indicated they began to steal cars in their midteens with the assistance of more experienced offenders; � Reasons for getting involved in car theft were listed as influence of friends, excitement of stealing cars, and boredom; � Over time, the opportunity to make money seems to have become more important with over a third progressing to "professional" car theft for financial gain; � More than half described themselves as "specialists" dedicated to stealing cars as opposed to committing other crimes; � Most offenders did not consider car theft to be a serious crime; � Nine of 10 said they were not deterred by the prospect of being caught; � One third indicated that parking lots (car parks) were the targets, while many offenders said they would take a car from anywhere; � Offenders targeted older cars that were easier to steal as well as makes and models they were familiar with; and � Thirty-four percent of the group indicated alarms had some deterrent effect but otherwise reported vehicle security as ineffective. Some common traits can be established from these studies and data concerning arrests of motor vehicle theft offenders. The majority of offenders reported that they began stealing vehicles in their teens. The typical offender in Arizona is a White male between the ages of 15 and 29. Reasons cited in the studies for stealing vehicles are varied, but a desire to support a lifestyle above their current income was a common theme. Most offenders preferred to steal from large parking lots and did not see a high risk of being apprehended for their crimes.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Population From 2000 to 2003, the number of inmates committed to the Department of Corrections for motor vehicle theft increased each year, a total of 119 percent over the four year period. From 2002 to 2003, the number of inmates committed for motor vehicle theft increased 18.6 percent. A one day snapshot of the total inmate population on December 31, 2003 revealed that of the 31,258 inmates incarcerated, 2,241 of those inmates were incarcerated for motor vehicle theft (7.2 percent of the total population). Table 24: Commitments to DOC 2000 - 2003 Motor Vehicle Total Percent of Theft Commitments Total 527 10,538 5.0% 746 11,597 6.4% 973 12,815 7.6% 1,154 14,107 8.2%
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003
From Arizona Department of Corrections
According to a review of the Arizona Department of Correction's data on all inmates incarcerated on December 31, 2003 for motor vehicle theft, 92.1 percent of inmates incarcerated for motor vehicle theft are male and 7.9 percent are female. Most offenders were between the ages of 18 and 29 (59.1 percent) at the time of admission into prison, while only 10.4 percent of those incarcerated for motor vehicle theft were over the age of 40. Table 25: Age of Admission Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Female Male Total Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 15-17 0 0.0% 40 1.9% 40 1.8% 18-21 38 21.5% 462 22.4% 500 22.3% 22-24 22 12.4% 331 16.0% 353 15.8% 25-29 45 25.4% 426 20.6% 471 21.0% 30-34 41 23.2% 348 16.9% 389 17.4% 35-39 21 11.9% 233 11.3% 254 11.3% 40-44 8 4.5% 142 6.9% 150 6.7% 45-49 2 1.1% 56 2.7% 58 2.6% 50-54 0 0.0% 18 0.9% 18 0.8% 55-59 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 60-64 0 0.0% 4 0.2% 4 0.2% 65 and over 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% Total of Population 177 7.9% 2,064 92.1% 2,241 100.0%
From Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The majority of inmates incarcerated for motor vehicle theft as of December 31, 2003 were Caucasian (50.9 percent), followed by Mexican American (28.5 percent), African American (8.4 percent) and Mexican National (8.1 percent). Nearly half of all inmates incarcerated for motor vehicle theft were Caucasian males (46.8 percent). Table 26: Race Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Female Male Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Caucasian 92 52.0% 1,049 50.8% 1,141 50.9% African American 11 6.2% 177 8.6% 188 8.4% Native American 9 5.1% 59 2.9% 68 3.0% Mexican American 57 32.2% 582 28.2% 639 28.5% Mexican National 5 2.8% 177 8.6% 182 8.1% Asian 0 0.0% 4 0.2% 4 0.2% Other 3 1.7% 16 0.8% 19 0.8% Total of Population 177 7.9% 2,064 92.1% 2,241 100.0%
From Arizona Department of Corrections
Only 17.6 percent of all inmates incarcerated for motor vehicle theft as of December 31, 2003 were known to have had no substance abuse history. Alcohol had been abused by over half of the inmates (52.4 percent) and 71.6 percent had abused illegal drugs. Table 27: Substance Abuse History Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Female Male Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent None 18 10.2% 376 18.2% 394 17.6% Alcohol Only 4 2.3% 227 11.0% 231 10.3% Marijuana 19 10.7% 422 20.4% 441 19.7% Stimulants 115 65.0% 301 14.6% 416 18.6% Depressants 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% Hallucinogens 1 0.6% 3 0.1% 4 0.2% Narcotics 8 4.5% 627 30.4% 635 28.3% Poly drug 11 6.2% 94 4.6% 105 4.7% Unknown 1 0.6% 10 0.5% 11 0.5% Total of Population 177 7.9% 2,064 92.1% 2,241 100.0% Any drug 154 87.0% 1,451 70.3% 1,605 71.6% All alcohol 65 36.7% 1,110 53.8% 1,175 52.4%
From Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Approximately one-fourth of the inmate population incarcerated for motor vehicle theft is suspected of affiliation with a gang. The percentage of males versus females involved in both gang activity and motor vehicle theft are virtually identical with 25.4 percent of females suspected of gang affiliation and 25.2 percent of males incarcerated for motor vehicle theft suspected of gang affiliation. Table 28: Gang Affiliation Inmates Incarcerated for Motor Vehicle Theft December 31, 2003 Female Male Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 45 25.4% 520 25.2% 565 25.2% 132 74.6% 1,544 74.8% 1,676 74.8% 177 100.0% 2,064 100.0% 2,241 100.0%
Suspected No Affiliation Total
From Arizona Department of Corrections
Juvenile Motor Vehicle Theft Juvenile offense data is tracked by the individual courts using a system called the Juvenile On Line Tracking System (JOLTS). This system provides the most comprehensive source of juvenile offense data in the state. This data allows for analysis of offenses in more detail than is available through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The data analyzed in this section is arrest data that was made available by the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department. Table 29: Age of Offense Total 1998-2003
Age Under 12 13 14 15 16 17 TOTAL Motor Vehicle Theft Count Percent 214 3.4% 479 7.6% 992 15.7% 1,467 23.2% 1,658 26.2% 1,507 23.9% 6,317 100.0% All Offenses Count Percent 2,483 2.6% 6,227 6.4% 13,888 14.4% 22,005 22.7% 26,528 27.4% 25,619 26.5% 96,750 100.0%
From Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
The largest percentage of juvenile crime is committed by youth offenders between the ages of 15 and 17. A larger percentage of younger juveniles (those 14 and under) were adjudicated for motor vehicle theft (26.7 percent) than for all offenses committed by juveniles (23.4 percent) between 1998 and 2003. During this time, 6.5 percent of all offenses adjudicated for juveniles were for motor vehicle theft.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The most likely day for Table 30: Day of the Week Crime Committed a juvenile to steal a Motor Vehicle Thefts by Juveniles vehicle between 1998 1998-2003 Not including June, July or and 2003 was Monday. Full Year August The percentage of 1998 � 2003 1998 � 2003 2003 vehicles stolen Monday Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent through Friday was Sunday 839 13.3% 780 13.4% 123 12.9% higher during the non- Monday 978 15.5% 912 15.7% 150 15.7% summer months Tuesday 880 13.9% 823 14.1% 151 15.8% 918 14.5% 837 14.4% 136 14.3% (September through Wednesday 934 14.8% 856 14.7% 143 15.0% May), months that Thursday Friday 943 14.9% 861 14.8% 137 14.4% juveniles are Saturday 826 13.1% 752 12.9% 113 11.9% traditionally in school. TOTAL 6,318 100.0% 5,821 100.0% 953 100.0% The vast majority of From Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department vehicles are stolen between September and May (92.1 percent), with only 7.9 percent of vehicles stolen between June and August. Table 31: Time of Day Motor Vehicle Thefts by Juveniles 1998-2003
Time of Day
Midnight - 3:59 a.m. 4:00 a.m. - 7:59 a.m. 8:00 a.m. - 11:59 a.m. Noon - 3:59 p.m. 4:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m. 8:00 p.m. - 11:59 p.m. Unknown TOTAL
1,416 559 730 1,017 975 1,520 101 6,318
22.4% 8.8% 11.6% 16.1% 15.4% 24.1% 1.6% 100.0%
From Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
Almost half, 46.5 percent, of vehicles stolen by youth were stolen between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. between 1998 and 2003. Only 8.8 percent of vehicles were stolen from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., while 27.7 percent of vehicles stolen were stolen between 8:00am and 4:00 p.m., the traditional school day, and 15.5 percent of vehicles stolen by juveniles were stolen between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Motor Vehicle Theft Offender Interviews In the fall of 2003, the Arizona Department of Public Safety's Video Production Unit video taped interviews with two convicted motor vehicle thieves. Both interviews were done without disclosing the identity of the thief. The first was involved in motor vehicle theft in conjunction with street racing, while the second was a juvenile offender involved in drug and gang activity, as well as motor vehicle theft. Interview #1 The subject interviewed identified himself as a "street racer" who had only been stealing vehicles for a year. He said that he started stealing vehicles in an effort to build his street racing vehicle into a top performing vehicle in order to regain his spot as a top racer. He indicated that a street car racer with a top performing car may have $30,000 to $40,000 invested in their vehicle. If a person cannot afford that kind of
Arizona Auto Theft Report
expense but wants to be a competitive street racer, stealing cars is one of the most common ways to make the money. He would strip the vehicles of valuables and parts before dumping the vehicle. Those parts which were not used for his vehicle were sold to other street racers. He indicated it takes 30 to 40 seconds to steal a car, and 45 minutes to 1 hour to strip a car depending on how many items you were taking. He indicated that he usually worked with other individuals who acted as lookouts, provided transportation to theft locations, or assisted in the stripping of parts from vehicles. He would have another vehicle trail the stolen vehicle closely when driving it so that the license plate could not be scanned by police. When asked to talk about locations he liked to steal vehicles from and types of vehicles he liked to steal, he said he preferred stealing cars from large apartment complexes late at night. He cited lack of security and controlled access as factors, along with the lack of threat of being noticed as not belonging near the vehicle. He stole from mall parking lots and vehicles that were parked for sale on street corners. He further indicated that magazines that advertise cars for sale are considered a catalog for auto thieves, especially if the ad gives the location of the vehicle. The car thief can read the ad and see exactly what equipment and options the vehicle has and he has even gone over to look at a vehicle with the owner with the intention of stealing it later. When asked why he would skip a certain vehicle he indicated it was because of security concern either by where the vehicle was located or what security systems it had. Security devices such as alarms, hood locks, stacked deterrence (multiple items installed to prevent theft), and "Watch Your Car" program stickers caused him to skip a vehicle and move to another. When asked why he would skip a car with the "Watch Your Car" symbol he said it was because he knew that the police would be able to stop those vehicles in the middle of the night to determine if the driver was the owner without having any other reason. He indicated that often the vehicles they stole were not locked and many had spare keys in them allowing them to be stolen in even less time and with less effort. He referred to "jiggle keys". He also mentioned how easy it was to obtain them. He was asked if he switched the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) numbers when he stole vehicles. He said they were so hard to get off the vehicle and an officer checking may notice it had been tampered with so he didn't switch the VIN numbers. Interview #2 At the time of the taping the subject was 17 years old and being held in a county jail after being remanded for motor vehicle theft as an adult. His sentence was for six months to be followed with an extended period of time on probation. A footnote to this interview indicates that some time after the offender completed this taped interview and was released from county jail on probation, he was arrested in a stolen vehicle. He is currently waiting to be sent to prison to start a lengthy period of incarceration.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
The subject was eight years old when he first got into trouble with the law. Initially it was for drugs (smoking marijuana) and then later for stealing. He indicated he started smoking marijuana at eight as well as drinking. He started using other drugs when he was 10 and admitted gang affiliation from 10 years on. He indicated that he first started stealing four wheelers (ATV's) and dirt bikes, and then later cars. His first experience with motor vehicle theft occurred at 10 years of age when he went with some older friends who stole a car. When asked how he learned to steal cars, he said by watching his friends. His early justification for stealing the ATV's and dirt bikes was because they were things his family could not afford. His most active period of motor vehicle theft was when he was between 13 and 14 years of age, during which time he stole between 50 and 100 vehicles that year. At this point he was sent to the Department of Juvenile Corrections for 24 months. He preferred to steal short bed Chevrolet pickup trucks. He said those vehicles looked good. He said many times parts were stripped off those pickups and put on vehicles they legally owned. Other times he stole vehicles to get parts for friends who would give him money. On other occasions it was just to use the vehicles as transportation. Those vehicles that were stolen for transportation would be dumped after a few days. He preferred to steal vehicles from apartment complexes because of the lack of security and the fact most people's apartments were located some distance from where their cars were parked. New home developments were good targets as it was easy to steal cars from carports or in front of homes parked on the street. He did not like to steal cars from mall parking lots as they were often too busy. Cars were disposed of in the desert or left in the back yards of friends after they had been stripped. He said he never burned a car but would use WD-40 to wipe them down to prevent the police from finding fingerprints. He indicated that Dodges were the easiest to steal, especially the Intrepid. He said they could be into and driving away in a minute in that vehicle. Others, such as pick up trucks, took up to four to five minutes to steal, especially if he had to crack the steering column. He said he left cars for sale along side the road alone as there were sometimes police officers staking out those vehicles. When looking for vehicles to steal he was asked what prevented him from taking a certain car. He said he would not take a car with a steering wheel locking device as he didn't want to "mess with it as it was too much of a hassle". Cars with alarms were no trouble if you could quickly bypass it. Sometimes he or a friend would use a large magnet to disrupt and scramble the alarm system. When he was first arrested at 14 years old, 16 felony charges were filed against him. As a result, he was sentenced to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections for 24 months. From 14 years of age to the present, he has been in and out of detention four times. He indicated that he had been involved in several car chases with police and had been confronted by the owners of the vehicles he was trying to steal at times. As a result of the latest charge, he was remanded as an adult and was in county jail. He
Arizona Auto Theft Report
indicated that knowing he faces state prison if he is arrested again is the biggest deterrent he faces when released from jail. Youth Offenders � Arizona Youth Survey The Arizona Youth Survey is conducted every two years by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) to fulfill the requirements of Arizona Revised Statute �41-2416. This survey is administered to a random sample of youth in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades to determine the prevalence of risk and protective factors related to alcohol, tobacco and drug use. A random sample drawn from the 15 counties resulted in a total of 12,203 valid surveys. The survey was administered to students in January and February 2002. Confidentiality was ensured to all participating students, and participation was voluntary. The anonymity assured to the students eliminated most of the reasons for students to exaggerate or deny behaviors. Several checks were built into the analysis to minimize the impact of students who were not truthful in their responses. Students whose surveys were deemed not truthful were eliminated. A total of 706 surveys were eliminated from the sample. Six of these surveys were eliminated because not enough valid questions were answered to determine truthfulness, and 700 surveys were eliminated from final analyses because they reported an impossibly high level of substance abuse, claimed to use a nonexistent drug, or reported that they were "not honest at all" in completing the survey. These measures, along with procedures utilized to ensure the understandability of the questions, using a well developed and tested administration protocol, and reading the same instructions to all participating students, worked to ensure the validity of the survey results. All students surveyed were asked how many of their best friends steal motor vehicles and whether they had stolen any vehicles in the previous 12 months. Over 90 percent of respondents had not stolen any vehicles in the previous 12 months and were not best friends with people who steal motor vehicles; however, 3.0 percent of respondents had stolen a vehicle in the previous 12 months and 9.6 percent of students were best friends with those who steal vehicles. Table 32: Total Student Population Total Number of Best Friends Steal Motor Vehicles # of Friends Percentage 0 Friends 90.3% 1 Friend 5.7% 2 Friends 1.7% 3 Friends 0.8% 4 Friends 1.4% Table 33: Total Student Population Total Vehicle Theft Frequency in the Last 12 Months # of Times Percentage Never 97.0% 1 or 2 Times 1.9% 3 to 5 Times 0.5% 6 to 9 Times 0.2% 10 to 19 Times 0.1% 20 to 29 Times 0.0% 30 to 39 Times 0.1% 40+ Times 0.2%
Arizona Auto Theft Report
From the responses of the 3.0 percent of students who responded that they had stolen a motor vehicle in the previous 12 months, 72.2 percent indicated that they had at least one best friend who also stole motor vehicles. The majority of students who had stolen a motor vehicle in the previous 12 months (63.6 percent) had stolen a vehicle one or two times during that time period. Table 34: Motor Vehicle Thieves Total Number of Best Friends Steal Motor Vehicles # of Friends Percentage 0 Friends 27.8% 1 Friend 23.8% 2 Friends 18.8% 3 Friends 8.8% 4 Friends 20.8% Table 35: Motor Vehicle Thieves Total Vehicle Theft Frequency in the Last 12 Months # of Times Percentage 1 or 2 Times 63.6% 3 to 5 Times 16.2% 6 to 9 Times 5.2% 10 to 19 Times 4.7% 20 to 29 Times 0.8% 30 to 39 Times 2.4% 40+ Times 7.1%
Maricopa County had the highest number of students who responded that they had stolen a motor vehicle in the previous 12 months with 52.6 percent of the affirmative Table 36: Motor Vehicle Thieves responses. Pima County had the next highest Gender number with 17.4 percent of the affirmative Percentage responses coming from that county. A Male 67.9% surprising result of the survey was that 32.1 Female 32.1% percent of students who were stealing vehicles were female. Of the total number of males who participated in the survey, 4.1 percent responded that they had stolen a vehicle in the past 12 months, whereas 1.9 percent of females surveyed responded they had stolen a vehicle in that time period. Students who identified themselves as White made up 41.2 percent of students who had stolen a motor vehicle in the previous 12 months. The second highest number of affirmative responses came from those who identified themselves as Hispanic (33.3 percent) followed by those who identified themselves as Native American (13.8 percent). Table 37: Motor Vehicle Thieves Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Percentage White 41.2% Black or African American 4.8% Native American 13.8% Hispanic 33.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 2.4% Other 4.4%
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Table 38: Motor Vehicle Thieves Gang Involvement Percentage Involved in a Gang 25.0% Not Involved in a Gang 75.0%
One-fourth of those who had stolen a vehicle in the previous 12 months also identified themselves as being involved in a gang.
The randomly selected students who responded to this survey are believed to be a representative sample of all 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students in Arizona. ARIZONA CASE STUDIES Several challenges were encountered in gathering data for mapping motor vehicle theft in urban areas in Arizona. In order to illustrate the phenomenon of auto theft, Tucson and Phoenix were used as case studies. The Tucson maps use Pima County spatial layers (streets with address ranges, city limits, etc.). These are the layers employed by the Tucson Police Department. Tucson auto theft data was provided by the Major Theft and Research & Analysis sections of the Tucson Police Department. The Phoenix maps use City of Phoenix spatial layers and Phoenix Police Department auto theft data provided by the Crime Analysis and Research Unit. Only crimes occurring in 2003 were used for this case study. In the future, the Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) will create additional maps to illustrate trends and changes in patterns between years. Phoenix Case Study Map 4: All stolen vehicles � Phoenix 2003 This map shows hot spots for stolen vehicles related to Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data from the Phoenix Police Department. Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data are for all those vehicles reported stolen whether they were later recovered or not. The addresses were obtained from the Phoenix Police Department for the whole of 2003. Each address was geocoded (matched to its location) on the Phoenix streets layer, also provided by the Phoenix Police Department. A total of 47,008 addresses were matched giving a 99% match rate. Six hot spots (areas of high auto theft frequency) are indicated by white contours. These hot spots are located in a backwards `L' shape along the northern side of west Interstate 10 and along Interstate 17 north of Indian School Road. Although auto thefts were found to occur throughout Phoenix, Metrocenter Mall was the most intense hot spot for auto theft. The pin map, or map of point locations, for auto theft is a traditional law enforcement approach to characterizing crime. The drawback of pin maps is that when multiple crimes occur in the same location (which is quite common) that data is lost upon the viewer since only the topmost symbol is seen.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
In order to get a better impression of the quantity of crimes, it is possible to show larger symbols where there are multiple crimes at the same address. In this analysis a spatial density layer was used to show auto theft intensity. Density layers show increasing intensity of events with a color ramp of increasing darkness. Map 5: Stolen vehicles (later recovered) � Phoenix 2003 and Map 6: Unrecovered stolen vehicles � Phoenix 2003 These maps show subsets of thefts from the above map. Hot spots were found to be slightly more prominent for subsequently recovered vehicles along the Interstate 17 corridor from Indian School Road to Peoria Avenue. Unrecovered vehicles had two hot spots west of 67th Avenue and north of McDowell Road while there was only one hot spot there for recovered stolen vehicles.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Tucson Case Study Map 7: All stolen vehicles � Tucson 2003 This map shows hot spots for stolen vehicle related calls for service to the Tucson Police Department in 2003. Calls for service are for all vehicles reported stolen. Data was obtained from the Tucson Police Department as a pre-geocoded layer with 6,327 locations. While there are fewer reported auto thefts than in Phoenix they tend to be more disbursed in Tucson. Nine hot spots were identified throughout the northern, more populated portion of Tucson. In Tucson, as in Phoenix, the largest hot spots occur along or near Interstates. In the case of Tucson: I-19 and I-10. However another large hot spot exists between Swan and Wilmot Roads, and East 5th Street and East 22nd Street. Map 8: All recovered vehicles � Tucson 2003 This map shows hot spots for recovered vehicle related calls for service in Tucson. Calls for service are for stolen vehicles which were subsequently recovered. For 2003 there were 194 recovered vehicles that were reported stolen in Tucson and 563 recovered vehicles that were reported stolen in other jurisdictions. Two of the three hot spots for recovered vehicles are large by comparison to the stolen location hot spots. They fall in the same general area as three of the stolen vehicle hot spots. The northern most hot spot covers an area between University Boulevard to West Roger Road and from East Interstate 10 to North Park Avenue (also referred to as the Oracle corridor). The southern most hot spot straddles the South Nogales Highway between East Interstate 10 and North Interstate 19. There is also a small hot spot at the intersection of North Alvernon Way and East Speedway Boulevard caused by an isolated cluster of recovered vehicles near that intersection. Map 9: Tucson stolen vehicle locations by recovery status � 2003 In a preliminary effort to spatially present the types of vehicle theft being experienced in Tucson, a map was created to illustrate the differing theft origination locations of two types of auto theft: those vehicles which are stolen and subsequently recovered and those which are never recovered. To achieve this, the stolen locations were thematically mapped according to whether or not they were ever recovered regardless of the recovery location. Then, a density layer was created using the same parameters for both stolen never recovered, and stolen and later recovered. Hot spots are color coded: violet for stolen and recovered, and red for stolen and never recovered. A definite difference between theft origination location and type of auto theft immediately became apparent. After having consulted with the Tucson Police Department auto theft analyst and two detectives, we believe these hot spots can be explained based on the motivation for stealing the vehicles. The hot spots for stolen but later recovered vehicles are all high drug (crack and methamphetamine) areas and the Oracle corridor is known for its prostitution activity, as well. As for the hot spots for stolen and not recovered vehicles: two of those areas
Arizona Auto Theft Report
contain malls and are good locations whereby vehicles are stolen and taken south across the border to Mexico. The area of 12th and Valencia is one of the first metropolitan areas on the U.S. side of the border and adjacent to I-19 � making it easy to get those cars down to Mexico. The data for this map came from an export by the Tucson Police Department before the end of 2003. Therefore, it only includes data from January 1st through November 4th, 2003.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Future mapping efforts The effort to map motor vehicle theft in Arizona has identified several difficulties in obtaining data for use in identifying criminal patterns and problem areas. Crime mapping technology holds great promise in allowing agencies to track where crimes occur, and focus resources in order to create the maximum amount of impact with the least resources. Given the multi-jurisdictional nature of motor vehicle theft, a regional crime center would be advantageous to crime mapping efforts. A regional crime center would be capable of taking data supplied by agencies such as where crimes occur, vehicle recovery locations, and where suspects live to assist agencies in determining if a suspect is operating in multiple areas. This would allow for greater cooperation among agencies, and reduce redundant efforts between organizations. However, in order for a regional crime center to succeed, current obstacles to information sharing must be addressed. This includes establishing policies and processes to elicit greater cooperation from all agencies, as well as standardized reporting procedures. Certainly, a regional crime center would greatly advance the abilities to map and further analyze motor vehicle thefts in Arizona. More spatially-based research needs to be done on the Phoenix and Tucson data presented in this report. An analysis of the relationship between stolen and recovery locations should be conducted to identify significant patterns, as well as compare distances between the two locations. Of course, at this macro scale, the work is only generally descriptive. The possibility of a more micro level case study should be explored. For instance, a stolen vehicle hot spot could be studied in detail to reveal a local pattern of auto theft. MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT LEGISLATION Motor vehicle theft in Arizona is generally prosecuted under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 13, Chapter 18, Theft, as well as some statutes in Title 13, Chapter 15, Criminal Trespass and Burglary. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) �13-1803 is most frequently used and classifies a person who "knowingly takes unauthorized control over another person's means of transportation" as committing a class 5 felony and a person who "knowingly is transported or physically located in a vehicle that the person knows or has reason to know is in the unlawful possession of another person" as committing a class 6 felony. Carjackings are prosecuted by statutes located in Title 13, Chapter 19, Robbery. Other statutes pertaining to motor vehicle theft are in Title 13, Chapter 47, Motor Vehicle Chop Shops. See Appendix D for all applicable statutes. The Arizona Automobile Theft Authority (AATA) was created by statutes A.R.S. �413451 and 41-3453. These statutes created a semiannual $0.50 surcharge on all vehicle insurance premiums to allow for a statewide resource to fight motor vehicle theft. The
Arizona Auto Theft Report
AATA was also authorized to penalize non-complying insurance companies. The AATA must report annually on the state of motor vehicle theft in Arizona. Less than 10 percent of funds that are collected are permitted to be used for the administration of the authority, allowing the rest to be used for grants to criminal justice agencies to fight motor vehicle theft, public awareness, research and other direct expenditures to combat motor vehicle theft. PROSECUTION Survey Data A survey was developed by the Statistical Analysis Center and administered to all county attorney offices in Arizona to determine methods and viewpoints on prosecuting motor vehicle theft. All fifteen agencies in Arizona completed and returned the survey. (For copy of the survey, see appendix E.) Trends that were noted by the responding agencies included an increase in street racing which caused an increase in motor vehicle theft of Hondas and Acuras for the engines and other parts. These trends also include an increase in carjackings, the continued practice of swapping VIN numbers on stolen vehicles, an increase in chop shops, and increased theft of motor vehicles for use in drug and human trafficking. Due to the increase in theft of vehicles intended for use for parts for street racing, it was recommended that statutes be amended to eliminate the value element (dollar amount) of theft of major component parts as it is often difficult to ascertain the value of the stolen parts. It was noted that law enforcement jurisdictions have increased their cooperation, including at the Federal and State level. However, the difficulty of a lack of uniformity as to whether a suspect is charged in the jurisdiction where the theft was made or the jurisdiction where the vehicle was recovered was noted. Prosecutors positively noted the value of recently implemented motor vehicle theft prevention/apprehension programs such as the use of bait cars. The value the Arizona Auto Theft Authority and the programs that it supports, particularly the VIN etching program to combat switching VIN numbers were noted by these agencies and increased/continued funding for the AATA was recommended. County attorneys' offices that utilize vertical prosecution noted that it increased conviction rates and helped to have a prosecutor that was dedicated to prosecuting motor vehicle theft. Overall, these agencies noted that there are several positive trends occurring in both the law enforcement and prosecution aspects of bringing motor vehicle thieves to justice, but that given the high level of motor vehicle theft in Arizona, there are improvements to the process that could be made.
Arizona Auto Theft Report
Vertical Prosecution One of AATA's funded programs is Vertical Prosecution. This program utilizes specially trained deputy county attorneys to be assigned auto theft cases from start to finish as well as any related cases. This will allow the assigned attorney to focus on the case and have a sense of ownership in the prosecution. Vertical Prosecution has proven effective in the prosecutions of other crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, drug and organized crime cases. A deputy county attorney for Maricopa County has been handling vertical prosecutions for auto theft since 2001. Because there are so many auto theft cases in Maricopa County, the attorney primarily handles cases referred from the Arizona Vehicle Theft Task Force as well as cases involving bait cars. Having an attorney who is familiar with the crime of auto theft and its intricacies such as VIN switches has contributed to the success of the program. This position is 100 percent funded by the AATA. In addition to the position funded in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, the AATA has also funded full time attorneys in Pinal and Pima Counties. One part time position has been funded (50 percent) in Cochise County, Mohave County, and Santa Cruz County. Expansion of this program is anticipated for other counties. A deputy county attorney in Pinal County was the first attorney in Arizona funded by the AATA assigned to vertical prosecutions of auto thefts. The program started in June of 2000 but became officially funded in September 2000. Part of the process of Vertical Prosecution involved learning about auto theft from investigators and then in turn educating investigators regarding the challenges involving prosecutions. This increases an investigator's expertise and makes their cases more complete. In addition, educating judges regarding the problem of motor vehicle theft was necessary. Expert witnesses were used during aggravation/mitigation hearings as a means to inform the judiciary. The success rate of the Vertical Prosecution Program of auto theft defendants has been very good and has resulted in higher sentences than other crimes considered more serious. Table 39: Vertical Prosecution 2002 2003 Prosecutors (Full-time and Part-time) 3 8 Participating Counties 3 6 Vehicle Theft Cases Filed 304 588 Convictions 221 319 Percent of Convictions to Cases Closed 98% 94% Restitution Ordered (in thousands) $747.2 $818.2
From Arizona Automobile Theft Authority Annual Report, 2002 and 2003
In fiscal year 2003, AATA funded a total of eight prosecutors for Vertical Prosecution in six Arizona counties. These prosecut
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.