21 U.S.C. § 856 – Maintaining drug-involved premises

21 U.S.C. § 856 – Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises

21 U.S.C. § 856, also known as the “crackhouse statute,” makes it illegal to knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance. This law was enacted as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and aimed to give law enforcement more tools to combat drug trafficking operations.

The statute has two main parts – section (a) which covers opening or maintaining drug-involved premises, and section (b) which covers managing or controlling any building or room and knowingly making it available for drug activity. Let’s break down each section:

Section (a) – Opening or Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises

Under section (a), it’s illegal to:

• Knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.
• Manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

So in plain terms, you can’t open or maintain any building, room, or enclosure for the specific purpose of drug activity. This includes houses, apartments, hotel rooms, warehouses, barns, garages – any place that is used for making, selling, or using drugs illegally.

The key is that the place must be maintained for the purpose of drug activity. Just having drugs present or being used at a location is not enough. The intent and purpose behind opening or operating the premises must be proven.

Section (b) – Managing or Controlling Drug-Involved Premises

Section (b) covers managing or controlling a building or room and knowingly making it available for drug use. Specifically, it’s illegal to:

• Manage or control any building, room, or enclosure, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee.
• Knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

So if you’re in charge of a place as an owner, manager, etc., you can’t knowingly allow people to use it for drug activity. Unlike section (a), the purpose doesn’t have to be drug-related – just knowingly permitting the activity is enough.

Penalties

Violating section 856 can lead to:

• Up to 20 years in prison.
• Fines up to $500,000 for individuals or $2,000,000 for organizations.
• Forfeiture of the property.
• Denial of federal benefits, such as student loans.

Penalties tend to be harsher if children are exposed to the drug activity. Fines and sentences can also be increased for repeat offenders.

Defenses

There are a few potential defenses if charged under section 856:

• Lack of knowledge – The prosecution must prove you knowingly allowed drug activity on the premises. If you can show you didn’t know about it, that’s a defense.
• No control – For section (b), you must have authority and control over the property. If you didn’t, you may not be liable.
• No drug activity – You can argue that no drug-related activity actually occurred at the location.
• Incidental drug use – Some courts have held that section 856 doesn’t apply to premises where drug use was merely incidental rather than an intended purpose.

In one case, United States v. Shetler, the court found that section 856 requires “significant” drug activity, not just incidental use. So infrequent drug use by social guests was not enough to convict the owner.

Crackhouse Statute Controversies

The crackhouse statute has been controversial and criticized by some as overbroad. A few key issues that have come up:

• Ravers – In the early 2000s, section 856 was used to prosecute owners of venues where rave parties were held, despite little evidence of intentional drug activity.
• Medical marijuana – There have been attempts to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries under section 856, raising questions about state vs federal law.
• Harm reduction – Some cities have proposed supervised injection sites to address the opioid crisis, which could be targeted under section 856.

Civil liberties groups argue the statute gives too much discretion to police and prosecutors and chills beneficial activities. But courts have generally upheld convictions, finding section 856 to be constitutionally valid.

Recent Cases

Here are some recent notable cases involving charges under 21 U.S.C. § 856:

• In U.S. v. Francisco (2020), the owner of a heroin mill in the Bronx was sentenced to 10 years in prison and forfeiture of the property.
• In U.S. v. Tebeau (2017), the operator of a self-styled “church” allowing marijuana use was convicted under section 856(a)(2).
• In U.S. v. Chen (2014), a motel owner in Pennsylvania was convicted for allowing drug trafficking on the premises.

These cases help demonstrate how broadly section 856 can apply to landlords, property managers, and owners who permit drug activity on their premises.

The Bottom Line

The crackhouse statute remains an important tool for law enforcement to combat the drug trade. But its broad scope also raises civil liberties concerns. Courts have generally upheld convictions when intentional drug activity is clear. But incidental use by guests or tenants may not be enough to violate section 856. Those charged under this law face steep penalties but may have certain defenses available.