our first case on the call of the docket today tuesday september twenty eighth two thousand and eleven excuse these agenda number thirteen case number one one eleven eighty eight six people versus andrew young the counsel for the  brazenly standing four hundred forty three feet out on the street from high mountain church in preschool selling heroin to an undercover police officer the statute establishes that any person who commits this act within a thousand feet of the real property comprising any school is guilty of a class one felony we contend that the statute means what it says the rules of statutory construction set forth by this court established that when a term is left undefined in statute the reviewing court must assume that the legislature intended it to have its ordinary and popularly understood meaning that a preschool is commonly ordinarily in plainly understood to be a school is not in dispute defended his not contended this the appellate court did not find otherwise in fact no in an annoyed court has made this finding in fact every illinois court has been faced with interpret in a statute where the term school was left undefin has been able to easily define the term using a dictionary and case law and determine that a preschool is indeed a school and it should be no different here this court should be able to rely on the dictionary and case law to define the term school and determine that it commonly understood to include a preschool and the term school is not ambiguous and the determination that a preschool is a school is not absurd and it is under these circumstances where there is no ambiguity and and we assume that the legislature has really conceded to this interpretation and in other words is the term school used in the section now have a subtle i don't believe it does i don't believe that legislative acquiescence has taken  place in this case indeed in goldstein and owens the issue there was a college whether or not a college was a school within the statute and the when goldstein was interpretating what they did was broad definition they did not have a limiting definition that went to express it went against the expressed intent of of the statute so the legislature did not have to step in in terms of making any adjustments in terms of whether or not a college is a school but the legislature has not been alerted thus far to the situation where somebody is challenging whether preschools a school so why did you i'm sorry with your interpretation as i think what you're trying to say is if a driving school or truck driving school which we've seen in the cases would be suggested that it would be absurd to find them a school but first of all even if it were true that if i were up here trying to tell you that a drug sold in the restaurant on the first floor over coffee just within the thousand feet if the new interpretation i don't believe there's this legislator made a distinction between vertical a thousand feet and horizontal thousand feet so now i think i hasn't been that the that it's not known generally that this is a nursery school and on the premises i don't think the legislature had set out at any point that the defendant who chooses to sell here when has to know that the school basis so you need drug transactions with or within your definition i'm sorry i in a drug transaction that would occur on the premises of an office that's dedicated for the purpose of practice of law but some facilities are provided for  it and it is not up to it based on the rules of statutory construction where where the term preschool is and it's just cannot be seen as being absurd that it it comes into the definition of school that i do i just don't believe  that that it would be the position of this court to limit the term it would be up to the legislature down if they felt that that took the term too broad to limit it but this the rules of statutory construction are very clear that point yes on with regard to legislative intent though it seems like the legislation and the debates that the targets of of the legislation was coolidge children who might be targets also for being in drug selling so it seems kind of absurd that preschool children who really brought back and forth to their date here are preschool would be targets for this kind of drugs and gun well while my first point is that i am not conceding in any way that we should be at this point looking at the debates the term is not is not ambiguous and therefore we my position is that we should not even we are not in a position to even look beyond what an outside stool tool of statutory construction such as debate however if we were to look at those debates i do believe that the legislature which would like us to look at the dictionary the dictionary is this court this court in a slew of recent cases has established that that is he has used judicial restraint in a slew of recent cases and has in fact to use the dictionary when they were faced when you were faced with a term that was undefined used a dictionary in case law finding a term to be unambiguous and declined overtly declined the defendant's invitation to look to outside tools interpretation this court did it in people vs khartum own in two thousand and nine for the definition of emotional distress and mental anguish people vs diggins two thousand and nine for the definition of the word case used  dictionary did not resort to legislation history even though the defendant asked you to people versus davidson davis in two thousand and nine defining the word poisonous gas with a dictionary people verses to flip bow use the  plainly language of people versus conic people versus christensen over and over and over this court goes to a dictionary and that is what this court has determined is the first step to define the plain language of the statute and to find  understood meaning of the word but to get back to you or your question i do believe that when as i stated not that i'm conceding we should be looking at the debates but if you look at the debates on the general comments by the legislatures indicate that there is no distinction between the most the youngest most vulnerable chill drin school children illinois and and those one two or ten years older when it comes to the fact that their goals were to try to get rid of drugs in schools the health and welfare of youth and i'm quoting the house and welfare of the you throughout the state of illinois reversed the current trend of drug alcohol use and abuse by school age individuals prevent individuals particularly our youngsters in the states from being tempted by the influence of yes you mention that term in your brief as well one of the most vulnerable sectors of our community yes are you aware of any case in which someone has been convicted of selling drugs to a vulnerability are they vulnerable to drug dealers since there is already mentioned supervised at all times and most likely carry no money i absolutely believe that a preschooler even if they are holding the hand of mom on the side and dad on the side and if they are walking past drug transactions every single day when they go to school and they are walking past criminal activity and seeing drug users in tax a k did wandering around legislatures in their debates were only concerned with buying drugs they were concerned with the whole culture of this going on in the where little eyes little very influential eyes would be watching what's going on and i mean the worst thing in the world that we would  spent see things and things couldn't but you know it's up to the legislature to protect these kids as much as they can they have they have established this law to protect them at least around what should be the most you know state thank you five place where they go every day their school to learn to have an environment where they feel comfortable and not frightened and not wondering what all this criminal activity or evidence introduced mystic was that high mountain preschools that they have a high mountain is that the name preschool this this point in this case was never contested that it was a preschool it was accepted by all it's never ever been contested and i believe at this point where the passion that we're in now in the light most favorable to the state that it is there is no question that we would consider that it would be a preschool but no it was not contested and therefore there was no evidence necessary and that's important because you indicate that the different i'm sorry the dictionary definition of school is a place where instruction instruction this is my position because it was never contested in this case and again at this point where we do view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state when you when you look at the fact that it's called the high mountain preschool at this point is is not the point where we would need preschool and at this point we are viewing at an entity called high mountain preschool and certainly at this point we're uncontested that's not had has not been an issue in the case i did want to say getting back to the vulnerability of the children again in their learning environment i do think it's i do think that the legislature legislators  intend that even just the the contact atmosphere of criminal drug dealing would be something that would be very negative for even our smallest use absolutely and i was stating that yes this court has had many recent cases where you in fact employ the dictionary and i thought that people versus mccartney was very instructive people versus mccarthy was very instructive in this case where this court did in fact use the webster's dictionary to define the term substance containing methamphetamine when the defendant in that case was convicted of manufacturing over nine hundred grams of a substance containing methamphetamine and this court's that quote said quote if the legislator had intended to limit the application of the provision it could have easily done so in the absence of the legislature's expressed statement of such a limitation we decline to return in the statute and also similar in the case that it was not dispute what the meaning of substance containing methamphetamine meant but the defendant simply contended that it was an observed absurd result they thought it was absurd to punish a first time or occasional small batch manufacture of her who does not even ambiguous statute and it and again this court stated that to the extent that any express language in the statute contradicts the preamble the statutory language controls the  offenses tugger targeting different conduct and that the defendant was mistaken in assuming that the sentencing waits for two discrete offenses must be calculated by atomico means where that leaves this case is simply that when and according to this court when a word is understand the word to mean and i would submit to you that the average person every person sitting in this room understands that a preschool is a school and that is simply not an absurd finding and without any kind of an absurdity this court is not in a position to intervene to correct something that needs no correction because there is no absurdity the inquiry starts there and ends there at the popularly understood definition and we ask that this court find so and that this court  any public or private elementary or public elementary or secondary school community college college or university does not include preschools the term school is so broad that it is ambiguous but the term should not be defined by simply looking to the dictionary the best definition of the term school can be found from the words of donald somebody themselves in public at eighty four dash one of seven five or also by looking to the definition found generally in the criminal code and we know the term isn't vigorous and requires definition for multiple reasons first the legislature generally defines it each time it is used and provides a different definition in each context such as the definition we find in public act eighty four additional seventy five and different more specific definitions is used in the school code and other legislation doesn't indicate to the contrary that if the legislature wanted to limited they would specifically say i don't think so in this case because the term you mean even if you look to the states definition this broad definition by looking to the dictionary the dictionary itself has multiple definitions so you can't there isn't one plain ordinary meaning of the term school and so the fact that the general assembly nearly always defines it and then again provides us the general definition in the criminal code to look to when it isn't defined specifically in a statute demonstrates they recognize that it is very broad and we need some specific guidance on where to narrow the term if you were a realtor and a tensional buyer asked you were there any schools in this neighborhood i would answer the question there was preschool corner i think generally the first instinct of a realtor would be to point out the public schools the primary schools the one that you're paying for with your taxes what school district your child would be and if that's the first thing you associate with buying a home additionally they probably would begin to point out other institutions in the area as well as daycare centers but i think the first instinct was generally what elementary garden junior high or high school your child would be going to court immediately determined that the term school required a definition and each time the appellate court looked to the definition that was provided three times in public act eighty four additional seventy five and each time was specifically applied to a school zone within one thousand feet of a school the same area that's prescribed here in section four zero seven so again this is another indication that the appellate courts recognized immediately that the term was ambiguous and needed some narrowing and the state's definition is just simply too broad and it would lead to absurd results such as including driving schools by our colleges dance academy anywhere that instruction is given school because it was really i think a preschool does begin to start if you did a factual determination which was not done in this case a few preschool could very well be a daycare center it's hard to know just from the name preschool and that's all we're going on here but each place if you go on a six and each one provides instruction each one would be some sort of organized institution where you'd have a pupil and a teacher but again some preschools like the one and the building in moscow they have you know they provide lunch they provide daycare i'm sure they have young enough to learn that they change diapers and you potty training and potty training again is another form of instruction but i don't think that would be analogous to what we do in elementary secondary schools junior high community citizens doesn't indicate that the legislature wanted to protect the young in the old from the violence that is associated with drugs and drug dealing difference such as if you have these indications but and this and this statute specifically did not include preschools but we know i said in the brief and different statutes they specifically listed preschool separately just as in some they perceive specifically with daycare centers that partly so that indicates that the general assembly recognized that there was a difference and here specifically and the amendment eighty four additional seventy five when this was added to section for a seven that was focusing specifically just on adding this language about schools and that is where and the other three portions of public at a fresh one of seventy five they focused narrowly are purchasing drugs or weapons right that's one of the things certainly points you make but the stair shoot also applies just as carmen just said to sewing drugs within a thousand feet of churches nursing homes and senior citizens housing complex it isn't it true that senior citizens nursing home residents and churchgoers earn journal are generally at risk of being recruited into gangs or purchasing drugs or weapons as well i think that certainly be true for nursing homes and those types of as well but those statute isn't focused exclusively on the general assembly was especially for the school portion looking at keeping schools as a safe place where the students aren't being tempted and recruiting and vulnerable for those activities but there is yes there is a indication that we want these safe areas where there's a vulnerable population but that's why these vulnerable populations are specifically listed and a church is covered or a nursing home is covered but it doesn't include preschool playground or it doesn't include other areas w but whether or not a particular group is actually a risk doesn't necessarily and there are inquiries certainly for like locations inciting churches in other locations that's true they are not looking to whether or not a pastor would be recruited into a gang but they still protect the area around the  yes but the crucial thing here is that a line has to be drawn somewhere and defying school we have no right things such as the church or other areas that are specifically defined as areas we want to protect within these zones  line has to be drawn and it can't be extended to barber colleges or any type of institution where there's instruction given or and even instruction given specifically to the young there must be a line and if you accept the state's definition you do get into the evidentiary issue in the state's burden argument was simply that a preschool does not fall within the statute defense counsel did ask some questions to us the testimony about whether the school was actually open and rather students were attending the school at the time but you're correct there was no inquiry inquiry into whether  the age of the students of the type of instruction that was taught he did except just on the term that was a preschool that was a preschool in charge of fact where there preschool at all could be considered falling within the statute but if you took the instruction definition of state and future cases if school and under that definition it's very clear that high mountain church and preschool would not be a school and again to protect this population it is specifically the students here at high mountain church in preschool it's not necessary to determine that this preschools the school this was high mountain church and preschool if the state wanted to intended this to be a class one offense they could have charged and continued under the theory that he that the fence recurred within one thousand feet of a church many preschools generally are located within churches are located within other public schools or procul school systems and it's not necessary to distinguish them in that case because they are within one thousand feet and still within a protected area and again whether this is what whether it's a good idea in their vulnerable population that should be protected as are churches in other areas the main question is whether that's what the general assembly stated here in section four seven and in public act eighty four just one of seventy five and what the language here says is school and as it was defined and this is just one part of that whole public act there's that public act the fines the area in these three other points as one thousand feet within a school and school is a public or private elementary or secondary school community college college or university and that definition simply does not include preschool here and finally if there's any question or doubt about the proper definition to apply the rule of law to states the true question should be determined in favor of the defendant anthony  if there are no further questions it is evident that the term school requires definition the general of the time we provided that definition and public at eighty four to one of seven five the definition does not improve klute preschools therefore this court should from the decision of the your counsel counsel argues to this court that the term school requires definition but the definition that the term school requires is the one that the legislature intended  have and when it when the legislature leaves a term undefined that we must assume that the definition intended to have was the popularly understood definition which is not being disputed that a preschool is popularly understood to be a school  defended also but talk a lot about we have to draw a line we have to limit it we have to limit it is not up to this court to limit the term that does not lead to an absurd result it is it is up to the legislature if they so choose to limit it but in the posture of which which this case is in does not lead this court to be able to be in a situation to limit a term especially where there is no expressed intent by the legislature if we are looking at far where they actually said we don't want preschools included without an expressed intent this court has has no ability as it is the itself as stated to limit the term and i do want to just quickly address the issue of the truck driving school vocational schools i would suggest to this court that even if this quote were faced with an issue if i was standing up here talking about within a thousand feet of a truck driving to work school we wouldn't even get that far in the analysis whether or not it was absurd because this understood definition of school suggesting a distinction between education and training so we might not even get this court might not even get that far if it was if it was presented with a situation but nonetheless just because there is some school out there that could possibly be considered absurd and not what the legislature intended based on the plain language of the statute does not follow that a preschool is absurd those are things are not mutually exclusive a preschool being defined as a school is directly i did with goldstein and i once courted and went immediately to the legislative debate to debate violating the rules of statutory construction in which the first step they must take is to try to define the term based on the pla directly address that argument sure absolutely the legislature for whatever reason during the course of the debates and by the way when they did discuss in the course of the debate the definition that ended up in three out of those four statutes it was not when they were talking about this statute it was when they were talking about one of the unit so you're suggesting we should look to the debates to figure this out oh no i'm not suggesting that at all i'm i'm trying to answer your question which i thought was guiding me to discuss the legislative debate of course  i'm really talking with the legislative action in public in this one probably the legislature address is like four separate statues including this one and provides a definition right why should we not assume then that the legislature expected us to use the definition that it was using in this problem i was with you i would suggest to you that even if there is a possibility that that was an oversight even if that process if we acknowledge that there was that possibility i this case the way this case presents itself that would be an oversight that the legislature would need to correct itself because this court is not in a position to make that correction because if we are not presented with an absurd finding based on that  oversight if it wasn't you know oversight which i am not by any stretch of the imagination conceding that it is because we don't know what happened from the debates to the statute when the actual session was written we don't know what it what happened in between and why they chose to give three of the statutes a definition and keep one broad and again i want to reiterate the point that is what the legislature intended when it left a term undefined it wanted a broad definition that it did not see for this court to limit the definition and the only circumstances in which this court would would want to do something like that is if there was an absurd result which there simply is not here at there any other question thank you very much thank you to both counsel for your arguments today that case number one eleven eighty six people versus young is taken advisor's agenda number thirteen