(a) Proof that an activity described by § 125.0015 is frequently committed at the place involved or that the place is frequently used for an activity described by § 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 § 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 § 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 § 125.0015(a)(18) is committed at a place maintained by the defendant, after notice was provided to the defendant in accordance with § 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 § 125.0017; or
(2) the date the defendant actually received notice under § 125.0017.
(b) Evidence that persons have been arrested for or convicted of offenses for an activity described by § 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 § 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 § 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.