People v. స్థూపం, 2 N.Y.3d 557 (2004)
When determining if a drug sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a school for the purpose of enhanced penalties, the distance should be measured in a straight line, regardless of obstructions.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the distance between a drug sale and a school, for the purpose of Penal Law § 220.44 (2), should be measured by straight line or pedestrian route. The defendant was convicted of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school. The sale was within 1,000 feet via a straight line but not via the shortest pedestrian route. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute requires a straight-line measurement to create a clear, drug-free buffer zone around schools, aligning with the legislative intent and interpretations in other jurisdictions.
Facts
The defendant sold drugs to an undercover officer at the corner of 40th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. The nearest school, Holy Cross, was on 43rd Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. A straight-line measurement from the sale location to the school’s boundary was less than 1,000 feet. However, due to buildings, a pedestrian could not walk in a straight line between the two points, and the shortest walking distance exceeded 1,000 feet.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because the distance should have been measured by the shortest pedestrian route. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, under Penal Law § 220.44 (2), the distance between a drug sale and a school should be measured by a straight line or by the shortest route a pedestrian would have to travel.
Holding
Yes, the distance should be measured by a straight line because this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to create a clear, drug-free buffer zone around schools and avoids uncertainty and potential manipulation of the statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the school-grounds law intended to create a “corridor of safety for children coming to and from school” (Mem of State Exec Dept, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2892). Defining school grounds to include the area “within” 1,000 feet of the boundary extends the school’s boundaries outward, encompassing all public areas within that radius. The court noted that the 1,000-foot measurement was chosen based on the number of narcotics-related arrests within a two-block radius of elementary schools. Other jurisdictions with similar statutes also use a straight-line measurement. The federal schoolyard law uses a straight-line measurement. A pedestrian measurement would introduce uncertainty and allow dealers to evade the statute by creating circuitous routes. The court quoted *Watson, 887 F.2d at 980-981, stating that “[r]equiring speculation about pedestrian routes would create uncertainty in a statute which was meant to establish clear lines of demarcation.” The court concluded that the statutory distance should be measured “as the crow flies.”