Distribution, Manufacturing or Selling CDS Near a Public Park or Housing Facility

The Complexities of Drug Crimes Near Public Spaces in New Jersey

Overview of Relevant New Jersey Laws

New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 prohibits the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, and possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances (CDS). Penalties vary based on the amount and type of substance involved. For instance, distribution of 5-10 pounds of marijuana or 1-5 pounds of hashish is a second degree crime punishable by 5-10 years in prison and a fine up to $150,000[1].

Harsher punishments apply when these crimes occur near public parks, schools, public housing facilities, or libraries. An additional penalty of up to $150,000 can be imposed under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, which prohibits CDS activities within 500 feet of such locations. Those convicted also face a mandatory minimum sentence of one-third to one-half of the original sentence term.

So someone charged with distribution of 5-10 pounds of marijuana near a public park could face 6-15 years behind bars rather than just 5-10 years. The potential $150,000 fine would also double to $300,000 total.

Defenses and Mitigating Factors

Several defenses may apply in CDS distribution cases near public places. A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney can assess if any of these arguments could lead to reduced charges or penalties[2]:

• Lack of intent: The prosecution must prove the defendant purposely or knowingly manufactured, distributed, or possessed CDS with intent to distribute. Arguments may be made about lack of knowledge of the substance’s nature or ignorance of the proximity to a public space.
• Entrapment: Law enforcement cannot implant criminal intent where none existed originally. If police used coercive tactics to push someone into committing a CDS crime near a protected area, an entrapment defense may succeed.
• Misidentification: Eyewitness mistakes do happen. An identification procedure may have been improperly conducted, calling into question who truly committed the crime.
• Illegal search: If drugs were discovered through an unconstitutional search, seizure, or interrogation, evidence may be suppressed.

Several mitigating factors could also lead to more lenient sentencing, such as:

• Minimal prior criminal history
• Non-violent offense
• Drug addiction or mental health issues
• Cooperation with authorities
• Limited role in the offense
• Advanced age

Judges have discretion to “downgrade” convictions to lower degrees or impose less than the mandatory minimum sentence if mitigating factors sufficiently outweigh aggravating ones[3].

Ethical Implications and Alternative Approaches

While laws prohibiting drug sales near schools and parks aim to protect public health and safety, they can also disproportionately punish marginalized groups and do little to address root causes of addiction.

Low-income neighborhoods often lack access to effective drug treatment programs. Enhanced penalties may thus unfairly target those selling drugs to support their own untreated addictions. Racial minorities are also more likely to be profiled as drug dealers and experience biased enforcement efforts[4].

Rather than solely relying on criminalization, many advocate for a “public health approach” to substance abuse issues. This involves expanding prevention education, addiction treatment access, and youth development programs in vulnerable communities.

For instance, Philadelphia’s West Philadelphia Landscape Project cleaned and greened vacant lots in high-poverty neighborhoods. Gun violence dropped by 29% over three years in areas where the improvements occurred. This model demonstrates the power of community investment to positively impact public safety.

New Jersey could consider similar initiatives to revitalize struggling neighborhoods as an alternative means of protecting children and families from drug-related harm. While those who commit serious CDS offenses near schools still warrant penalties, a balanced approach addressing root causes may better serve justice in the long run.

Conclusion

Drug laws in New Jersey impose harsh punishments on those who distribute, manufacture, or sell CDS near locations like public parks and housing projects. But these enhanced penalties also raise concerns about fairness and proportionality.

Defense attorneys can help those charged with such crimes understand their rights and build cases around entrapment, lack of intent, or illegal searches. Arguments related to addiction and socioeconomic disadvantage may also mitigate sentences. Ultimately, a public health-focused approach could help break the cycle of drugs, crime, and incarceration plaguing many communities.