OPINION OF THE COURT
It is а class B felony to sell drugs within 1,000 feet of a school. Because we agree with the courts below that this distance is to be measured in a straight line between the nearest school and the point of sale, wе uphold defendant’s conviction.
Penal Law § 220.44 (2) proscribes the third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance “when such sale takes place upon school grounds.” School grounds, in turn, means nоt only “in or on or within” school buildings or school property, but also “any area accessible to the public located within one thousand feet of the real property boundary line” of a schoоl, as well as any ve
Defendant was charged with selling drugs to an undercover police officer at the northeast corner of 40th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. At trial, the People offered proof that the nearest school was the Holy Cross grade school, located on 43rd Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. It is undisputed that the sale took place within 1,000 feet of the school when measured in a straight line between the sale and the school’s boundary line, but that existing buildings mаde it impossible to walk in a straight line between those two points. It is further undisputed that the shortest actual distance that a pedestrian would have to travel in order to walk from the scene of the crime to the school using city streets and publicly accessible locations exceeded 1,000 feet.
Defеndant contends that the statute mandates that the requisite distance be calculated by the “pedеstrian method,” and that the evidence was therefore legally insufficient to support his conviction. We are unpersuaded, and hold that the proper method of measurement under the statute is the “straight-line method.”
The school-grounds law was enacted in order to create a drug-free buffer zone of рrotection—“a corridor of safety for children coming to and from school” (Mem of State Exeс Dept, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2892). By defining school grounds to encompass both the school property itself and the entire area “within” 1,000 feet of the property boundary line, the Legislature effectively extended the boundaries of school grounds outward in order to encompass all public areаs within a 1,000-foot radius of the school.
Indeed, the 1,000-foot measurement was chosen because of the high number of narcotics-related arrests that had occurred within a two-block “radius” of elementary school grounds
2
(id,.; see also
Governor’s Mem approving L 1986, ch 280, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 3161 [because many, if not most, salеs of drugs to children occur near but not inside school buildings, the bill defines school grounds to include “the area” within 1,000 feet of the real property boundary line, providing a “zone of safety” for school children]). Thus, the intent of the
Other jurisdictions with similar statutes have construed their laws to require a straight-line measurement
(see e.g. Commonwealth v Spano,
414 Mass 178, 181,
Similarly, the fеderal schoolyard law—which prohibits “distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or manufacturing a controlled substancе in or on, or within one thousand feet of, the real property comprising” a school (21 USC § 860)— has been univеrsally interpreted to contemplate the straight-line method of measurement
(see e.g. United States v Henderson,
Defendant’s contrary reading would introduce uncertainty and оpen the statute to a charge of vagueness. 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. At a minimum, “[Requiring speculation about pedestrian routes wоuld create uncertainty in a statute which was meant to establish clear lines of demarcation” (Watson, 887 F2d at 980-981).
Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
Order affirmed.