People v. Daniels
241 Ill. Dec. 210, 718 N.E.2d 1064, 307 Ill. App. 3d 917 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that enhances criminal penalties for the delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a place of worship does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such a law is constitutional if it has a secular purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
Facts:
- Kenneth D. Daniels knowingly delivered a controlled substance, specifically cocaine.
- The amount of cocaine delivered was less than one gram.
- The delivery occurred on a public way.
- The location of the transaction was within 1,000 feet of property comprising a church.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a three-count indictment against Kenneth D. Daniels in the circuit court of Lake County, the trial court of first instance.
- Prior to trial, the trial court granted the State's motion in limine to prohibit Daniels from arguing that the State must prove his knowledge of the church's proximity.
- The trial court denied Daniels' motion to declare the sentence enhancement statute unconstitutional.
- A jury returned a guilty verdict on all three counts.
- The trial court entered judgment on the enhanced offense and sentenced Daniels to 4.5 years' imprisonment.
- Daniels, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, with the State as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does section 407(b) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, which enhances the penalty for delivering a controlled substance on a public way within 1,000 feet of a church, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Colwell
No, section 407(b) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Applying the Lemon test, the court found the statute constitutional. First, it has a secular purpose: to deter drug trafficking and protect vulnerable populations who gather at places of worship, which are part of a larger legislative scheme protecting areas like schools and parks. Second, its primary effect is not to advance religion but to punish criminals with an enhanced sentence; any benefit to religious institutions or their attendees is indirect and incidental. Third, the statute does not foster excessive entanglement because it does not provide aid to religious institutions or create an ongoing relationship between the government and religious authorities. The court also held that the State is not required to prove the defendant knew he was within 1,000 feet of a church, as the mental state requirement applies only to the underlying offense of drug delivery, not the location-based enhancing factor. Finally, the plain language of the statute does not require the State to prove that the church was occupied or that services were in session at the time of the offense.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of creating enhanced-penalty zones around places of worship, treating them similarly to school zones for public safety purposes. By applying the Lemon test, the court affirmed that such laws can serve a secular purpose of protecting vulnerable citizens without being construed as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The ruling also clarifies that location-based sentence enhancements are often strict liability elements, meaning prosecutors do not need to prove a defendant's knowledge of their proximity to the protected area, thereby lowering the evidentiary burden for the state in these cases.
