§ 125.004.Evidence

Title 6. Miscellaneous Provisions · Chapter 125. Common and Public Nuisances · Subchapter A. Suit to Abate Certain Common Nuisances · Last amended 2021 · Last verified August 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 125.004 supplies presumptions of knowledge from frequency and from notice, admits arrest and reputation evidence, and protects an owner who called for help.

Full Text of § 125.004

Text sizeJump to: (a) (a-1) (a-2) (a-3) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a)Proof that an activity described by Section 125.0015 is frequently committed at the place involved or that the place is frequently used for an activity described by Section 125.0015 is prima facie evidence that the defendant knowingly tolerated the activity.

(a-1)Proof in the form of a person's arrest or the testimony of a law enforcement agent that an activity described by Section 125.0015(a)(6) or (7) is committed at a place licensed as a massage establishment under Chapter 455, Occupations Code, or advertised as offering massage therapy or massage services, after notice was provided to the defendant in accordance with Section 125.0017, is prima facie evidence that the defendant:

(1)knowingly tolerated the activity; and

(2)did not make a reasonable attempt to abate the activity.

(a-2)Proof that an activity described by Section 125.0015(a)(18) is committed at a place maintained by the defendant, after notice was provided to the defendant in accordance with Section 125.0017, is prima facie evidence that the defendant:

(1)knowingly tolerated the activity; and

(2)did not make a reasonable attempt to abate the activity.

(a-3)For purposes of Subsections (a-1) and (a-2), notice is considered to be provided to the defendant the earlier of:

(1)seven days after the postmark date of the notice provided under Section 125.0017; or

(2)the date the defendant actually received notice under Section 125.0017.

(b)Evidence that persons have been arrested for or convicted of offenses for an activity described by Section 125.0015 in the place involved is admissible to show knowledge on the part of the defendant with respect to the act that occurred. The originals or certified copies of the papers and judgments of those arrests or convictions are admissible in the suit for injunction, and oral evidence is admissible to show that the offense for which a person was arrested or convicted was committed at the place involved.

(c)Evidence of the general reputation of the place involved is admissible to show the existence of the nuisance.

(d)Notwithstanding Subsection (a), (a-1), or (a-2), evidence that the defendant, the defendant's authorized representative, or another person acting at the direction of the defendant or the defendant's authorized representative requested law enforcement or emergency assistance with respect to an activity at the place where the common nuisance is allegedly maintained is not admissible for the purpose of showing the defendant tolerated the activity or failed to make reasonable attempts to abate the activity alleged to constitute the nuisance but may be admitted for other purposes, such as showing that a crime listed in Section 125.0015 occurred. Evidence that the defendant refused to cooperate with law enforcement or emergency services with respect to the activity is admissible. The posting of a sign prohibiting the activity alleged is not conclusive evidence that the owner did not tolerate the activity.

(e)Evidence of a previous suit filed under this chapter that resulted in a judgment against a landowner with respect to an activity described by Section 125.0015 at the landowner's property is admissible in a subsequent suit filed under this chapter to demonstrate that the landowner:

(1)knowingly tolerated the activity; and

(2)did not make a reasonable attempt to abate the activity.

End

Plain-English Summary

The evidentiary rules, and they decide most cases under this chapter.

Proof that a listed activity is frequently committed at the place, or that the place is frequently used for it, is prima facie evidence that the defendant knowingly tolerated the activity.

That converts frequency into knowledge, which is otherwise the hardest element to prove against an absent owner.

Two further presumptions follow notice under the massage establishment provision, and they go further. After such notice, proof of the activity — including proof in the form of an arrest or the testimony of a law enforcement agent — is prima facie evidence both that the defendant knowingly tolerated the activity and that they did not make a reasonable attempt to abate it.

Notice is treated as given the earlier of seven days after the postmark or actual receipt.

Arrests and convictions for listed activities at the place are admissible to show knowledge, proved by originals or certified copies, with oral evidence admissible to show the offense was committed at the place.

Note what those records show: knowledge, not the underlying crime.

Evidence of the general reputation of the place is admissible to show the existence of the nuisance — a rare statutory admission of reputation evidence, and one that fits a claim about what a place is known for.

Subsection (d) is the protection for the responsible owner. Evidence that the defendant or someone at their direction requested law enforcement or emergency assistance is not admissible to show toleration or failure to abate, though it may be admitted for other purposes, such as showing that a listed crime occurred.

Without that rule the chapter would punish calling the police, since every call would document the owner’s knowledge.

Two counterweights close it. Refusal to cooperate is admissible, and posting a sign prohibiting the activity is not conclusive evidence that the owner did not tolerate it.

Subsection (e) makes a prior judgment against the same landowner admissible to show both toleration and failure to abate in a later suit.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is knowledge proved?

Proof that the activity is frequently committed at the place is prima facie evidence that the defendant knowingly tolerated it.

Does calling the police count against an owner?

No. Requests for law enforcement or emergency assistance are not admissible to show toleration or failure to abate.

Is a warning sign a defence?

Not by itself. Posting a sign prohibiting the activity is not conclusive evidence that the owner did not tolerate it.

Can a previous judgment be used?

Yes. A prior judgment against the landowner is admissible in a later suit to show toleration and failure to abate.

Amendment History

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 14, Sec. 284(42), eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 857, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 968, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 14.04 to 14.06, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 3, 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1181, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1202, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1246 (H.B. 1690), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 858 (H.B. 2552), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1135 (H.B. 240), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 807 (H.B. 1540), Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2021.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 807 (H.B. 1540), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2021.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 807 (H.B. 1540), Sec. 62(3), eff. September 1, 2021.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from Texas Legislature Online (statutes.capitol.texas.gov). Enacted by the Texas Legislature. Current through May 14, 2026. Last verified August 29, 2026. · Official source