Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2001 Pa. Super. 121

775 A.2d 859

Commonwealth v. Hinds

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 25, 2001

This page is marked noindex.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2001-04-25

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2008

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is our finding that the General Assembly’s goal and purpose [in enacting this statute] was to protect the children of our communities from the ravages and evils of the illegal drug trade that pervades our country. Through the enactment of section 6317, it attempted to fortify the barrier that segregates the places where our children frequent from the illegal drug scene. A strict reading of the statute exemplifies the General Assembly’s intent. The statute protects our children “within 1000 feet of the real property on which is located a public, private or parochial school or a college or a university.” Furthermore, it protects our children in the places where they routinely play. The General Assembly did not choose to limit this protection solely to school play areas or municipal facilities, but chose to reinforce the purpose of the statute by including all areas within 250 feet of the real property on which is located a recreational center or playground.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2008 Pa. Super. 177 - Commonwealth v. Williams

“[I]n many places, it is not uncommon for institutions of learning to lease commercial space to accommodate students. A literal reading of the statute would extend the `zone' to 1000 feet around a commercial building even if its use as a school is not generally known.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Lewis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DEL SOLE, J.:

¶1¶ 1 I join the dissents of Judge Johnson and Judge Musmanno. I write separately because I conclude that the statute is too vague to permit implementation.

¶2¶ 2 The prohibited conduct must occur “within 1000 feet of real property on which is located a public, private or parochial school or a college or university ...” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317(a). My concern with this language is that the boundary of the “real property” is never marked therefore one cannot know the extent of the proscribed area. Further, in many places, it is not uncommon for institutions of learning to lease commercial space to accommodate students. A literal reading of the statute would extend the “zone” to 1000 feet around a commercial building even if its use as a school is not generally known.

¶3¶ 3 Thus, while I agree with the legislative intent to restrict sales at or near schools, I cannot find this statute sufficiently specific to permit enforcement.

¶4¶ 4 MUSMANNO, J., joins this Dissenting Statement.

/2001/pasuper/121 · .json · Public domain