The introduction of community policing led to a significant increase in the number of police stations, particularly in urban settings. Police stations are largely assumed to have an impact on crime but there are few studies dedicated to the issue. The concept of deterrence suggests a negative relationship between police and crime: an increased police presence should lead to a reduction of crime. While it is difficult to directly test that relationship, the present study takes advantage of two recent events in Montreal (Canada) to test the hypothesis that the closure of a police station causes an increase of crime in the surrounding area. Andresen’s Spatial point pattern tests and Wheeler and Ratcliffe’ weight displacement difference tests were conducted. While tests suggest that crime geographic patterns were dissimilar pre- and post-closure, none of those differences support the deterrence hypothesis because the number of areas in which an increase in crime was recorded is lower than would be expected by chance. Similarly, decreases in breaking and entering, mischief, theft in or on vehicles and total crime were found, which does not support the deterrence hypothesis. The study of hotspot policing led to the belief that police presence needs to be concentrated in both time and space if it is to have a significant preventive impact on crime. It also led to the development of strategies of concentrated policing that encompass a variety of prevention actions aimed at specific individuals, specific crime types, and/or specific areas. Police stations provide something different: a concentrated presence at one point location with the ability to deploy to respond to any crime, at any time, in a particular area.