People v. Fiedler, 31 N.Y.2d 176, 287 N.E.2d 300, 335 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1972)

To be convicted of maintaining a place for unlawful drug use under Penal Law § 1533(2), there must be evidence that the premises were used with some degree of regularity for that purpose, not merely that isolated instances of drug use occurred there.

Summary

Leslie and Margaret Fiedler were convicted of violating Penal Law § 1533(2) for allegedly permitting their home to be used for unlawful drug use after police found marijuana and hashish and observed their children smoking it. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the statute requires proof that the defendants “opened or maintained” a place for drug use, not merely that they permitted drug use to occur. The Court reasoned that the statute targets locations maintained for regular drug use, such as an opium den, not a family home where isolated instances of drug use occur.

Facts

Police officers, acting under a search warrant, entered the Fiedler’s home and found the defendants, their children, and friends. Upstairs, police found marijuana and hashish being smoked by some of the children. Dr. Fiedler stated that it was his house and he raised his children to think on their own and do what they wanted. The Fiedlers were charged with violating Penal Law § 1533(2), which prohibits opening or maintaining a place where narcotic drugs are unlawfully used.

Procedural History

The Fiedlers were convicted in the City Court of Buffalo. The Erie County Court affirmed the judgments. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendants’ acquiescence in their children’s isolated use of marijuana and hashish in their family home constitutes “opening or maintaining a place where any narcotic drug is unlawfully used” under Penal Law § 1533(2).

Holding

No, because Penal Law § 1533(2) punishes the creation and maintenance of facilities for narcotics users who resort there with some degree of regularity, not the mere occurrence of isolated instances of drug use.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that the statute’s language, particularly the word “maintains,” suggests the establishment and upkeep of a facility for narcotics use. The court stated, “It was never contemplated that criminal taint would attach to a family home should members of the family on one occasion smoke marijuana or hashish there.” The court traced the history of the statute, noting its origins in laws targeting opium dens. The Court contrasted §1533(2) with §1533(1), which penalizes using a building for “committing or maintaining a public nuisance.” The information charged the defendants with “permitting” drug use, a concept found in subdivision 1 (public nuisance), while the charge was under subdivision 2 (maintaining a place). The Court reasoned the statute was aimed at “inducing vice, rather than the vice itself” and is “independent of any crime which may be committed.” The Court cited People v. Campbell, 45 Misc.2d 201, stating that to “maintain” a nuisance “means something more than having knowledge of its existence. It means, in addition, preserving and continuing its existence.”