Opinion ID: 2434794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Schoolyard Counts

Text: We begin with a claim raised by Díaz and López-Capó that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the relevant drug activity took place within 1,000 feet of a protected area. See 21 U.S.C. § 860(a). They also argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of a school, playground, or public housing project as those locations are defined in the statute. See id. Because Díaz and López-Capó raised this argument as part of a Rule 29 motion, we review de novo, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir.2010). We conclude that the 1,000-foot requirement was met and that the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of a public housing project. We therefore need not address whether the government also proved that the defendants engaged in drug-related activity within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. Title 21 U.S.C. § 860(a), also known as the schoolyard statute, provides enhanced penalties for the distribution, possession with intent to distribute, or manufacturing of drugs in or on, or within one thousand feet of any of three protected areas: (1) a school; (2) a playground; or (3) a public housing facility. The indictment charged the defendants with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances within one thousand (1,000) feet of all three protected areas. [2] The government seems to have made its job unnecessarily difficult by alleging that the drug activity occurred within 1,000 feet of a protected area, rather than simply alleging that it occurred in or on a protected area, as the statute allows. See 21 U.S.C. § 860(a). When the government charges a defendant under the within 1,000 feet prong of the statute, we have held that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the distance from the protected area to the site of the drug transaction is 1,000 feet or less. United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d 146, 154 (1st Cir.2002). Because [d]istances are notoriously difficult to gauge in still photographs, and more so in motion pictures, we have generally insisted that the government provide a precise measurement. Id. at 155 (internal citation omitted). We have, however, carved out an exception in some cases where the spatial leeway is relatively great and the gap in the chain of proof is relatively small, such that common sense, common knowledge, and rough indices of distance can carry the day. Id. at 154. The government offered ample evidence that the drug point operated within the Carioca housing project. Government witness Heriberto García-Román testified that the drug point was located [i]nside of the Carioca Public Housing Project.... in some abandoned houses that were located right there inside of the Public Housing Project. Police Officer Víctor J. Veguilla-Figuero testified that the drug point was located in the area of the staircase, in two abandoned houses and in the children's play area within the Carioca housing project, and he identified each of those locations in a photograph of Carioca. Leonardo Martínez de León, who himself dealt drugs in Carioca, identified various locations from which the drug point operated within Carioca. And Police Officer Roberto Ayala-Vega testified that the drug point was always within Carioca but moved among multiple buildings in the housing project. The evidence was also sufficient to establish that Carioca is a housing facility owned by a public housing authority, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 860(a). Officer José Ortiz-Sierra, of the Puerto Rico Police Department's Monitoring Center for the Public Housing Projects, testified that the Monitoring Center has surveillance cameras within Carioca. It would be reasonable for the jury to infer from this testimony that Carioca is a public housing project. See Pérez-Meléndez, 599 F.3d at 40. Furthermore, defense witness Jessica Pinto-Capó, who worked as a secretary in the Housing Department, testified that she grew up in the Carioca Public Housing Project and that all Carioca apartments are owned by the Public Housing Authority. Given that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the drug point operated within Carioca and that Carioca is a public housing facility, it was also sufficient to establish that the drug point operated within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility. Where the government alleges that drug-related activity occurred within 1,000 feet of a protected area under 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) and then proves that the activity actually occurred in or on the protected area, the government need not provide a precise measurement establishing the 1,000-foot requirement. [3] In such an instance, common sense will carry the day. Soler, 275 F.3d at 154. We thus affirm Díaz's conviction. We address López-Capó's other claims below.