November 24, 2005

Within 1000 Feet = Within 1000 Feet

We can al argue about the efficacy and necessity of the War on Drugs. Wherever one comes down on that issue, though, it is difficult to argue with the logical position taken here by a court reading the plain language of a statute.

The question before the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, was whether a man named James Robbins was guilty of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school - which carries a longer sentence - when he was arrested in March 2002 on the corner of Eighth Avenue and 40th Street in Manhattan and charged with selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

The nearest school, Holy Cross, is on 43rd Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. How to measure? On foot, Mr. Robbins's lawyers argued, the school is more than 1,000 feet away from the site of the arrest, because the shortest route is blocked by buildings. But as the crow flies, the authorities said, it is less than 1,000 feet away.

Law enforcement officials calculated the straight-line distance using the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2) measuring the distance up Eighth Avenue (764 feet) as one side of a right triangle, and the distance to the church along 43rd Street (490 feet) as another, to find that the length of the hypotenuse was - 907.63 feet.

Lawyers for Mr. Robbins argued that the distance should be measured as a person would walk it because "crows do not sell drugs." But in a unanimous ruling, the seven-member Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and held that the distance in such cases should be measured as the crow flies.

"Plainly, guilt under the statute cannot depend on whether a particular building in a person's path to a school happens to be open to the public or locked at the time of a drug sale," Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote in the opinion.

Mr. Robbins is currently serving a 6-to-12-year sentence.

It is rather sad that we have to adjudicate such matters as whether 1000 feet actually means 1000 feet as measured in a straight line. I wonder, though -- had Robbins prevailed, would the courts have made an even shorter distance for individuals who are so drunk or high that they cannot walk a straight line?

And I'm curious -- will the ACLU argue that imposing an enhanced penalty for drug sales within 1000 feet of Holy Cross School constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause?

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

1 No, they won't. And that's a really misguided question, demonstrating you know very little about the ACLU.

The reason the point was raised, though, has nothing to do with the ACLU or any of the other liberal ghosts that frighten you. Criminal defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense (yep, you can look it up - that's true even after 9-11), and that's probably about the only argument they had. Once you're caught selling drugs to an undercover cop, you have to get pretty darned creative to try to avoid the big house.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 24 11:03:54 2005 (aSKj6)

2 Dan -- it was a joke, intended to mock the "vigorous defense" that was put on for this guy.

And you mentioned the ACLU, not me.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 24 12:05:30 2005 (ncZNx)

3 RWR - "And I'm curious -- will the ACLU argue that imposing an enhanced penalty for drug sales within 1000 feet of Holy Cross School constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause?"

(But don't be hard on yourself. I've made similar mistakes.)

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 24 16:17:38 2005 (aSKj6)

4 Crap -- why didn't my change save? Did I forget to rebuild that entry?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 24 16:58:25 2005 (cR4ho)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0044, elapsed 0.012 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0088 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]