Drug-Free School Zone Violations Defense Attorney

Charged with a Drug-Free School Zone Violation in California?

A California School-Zone Term Requires the Listed Drug Count, an Adult Defendant, a Covered Place and Time, and a Separately Proved Allegation.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended drug-free school zone enhancements — including HS § 11353.1 and HS § 11353.6 (specified drug offenses near a qualifying school; section 11353.1 has a separate minor-related predicate and facility rule) and related statutes — through independent zone measurement challenges, protected facility challenges, knowledge defenses, suppression of the underlying charge, and reductions in criminal courts across every county in California. School zone enhancements are frequently alleged, but the measurement, the qualifying facility, and the predicate offense are all contestable. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH A SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATION:

• Do not make statements about your location, awareness of any school, or the alleged drug activity without counsel — these statements can establish proximity, intent, and the evidence about the location or underlying offense; section 11353.6 does not separately require awareness of the school
• Check the measurement against the actual school property and alleged conduct location. A map, parcel record or survey may resolve a disputed boundary, but no universal survey error or successful challenge should be presumed.
• Preserve documentation — exact location details, GPS and mapping data, evidence of where the offense allegedly occurred, and any facts about the facility itself including its current operating status
• Preserve location records, school schedules, incident reports and search evidence promptly. A licensed surveyor may help if a boundary is genuinely disputed; counsel can first identify the charged statute, place and timing.

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

THE STAKES ARE REAL

Health and Safety Code section 11353.6 can add a three-, four- or five-year term to a listed underlying drug conviction when the defendant is an adult, the covered location and time are proved, and the allegation is separately charged and found true. The court has the statute’s stated mitigation authority. Federal 21 U.S.C. § 860 is a different offense and sentencing framework. Potential collateral consequences depend on the final counts and person, not on proximity alone.

• A final felony conviction can affect records and background checks; the exact entry and any later relief depend on the court disposition and governing law.
• A conviction may prompt professional licensing review; reporting duties and discipline depend on the board, offense and person.
• A sale conviction can have serious immigration consequences; a separate school-zone allegation does not by itself establish every federal classification. Review the conviction and underlying sale charge with immigration counsel.
• The alleged proximity can add a separate term only if the listed adult predicate, location, time, and charged-and-proved allegation satisfy section 11353.6. Enforcement intensity cannot be inferred from the allegation alone.

Many defendants had no awareness they were near a school and no intent to involve a protected zone. The gap between "drugs were involved near a school-like area" and "the enhancement is legally proven" creates real defense opportunities.

Quick Statute Overview:

Call (800) 755-5174 for a free 24/7 consultation.

WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE — AND WHERE DEFENSES LIE

To apply a school zone enhancement, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A listed conviction or conspiracy under section 11351.5, 11351, 11352, 11378, 11379 or 11379.6, but only with the particular controlled-substance combinations specified in section 11353.6(b). The count may involve transportation, possession for sale or manufacture; the generic label alone does not suffice.
2. The offense occurred on covered school grounds or in a qualifying public area or business within 1,000 feet of a listed school at the statutory time
3. The person was at least 18; the section 11353.6 allegation was separately charged and admitted or found true. The statute does not add an independent knowledge-of-school-distance element. Check the offense, substance, facility, location and required time separately.

Key Defense Targets:

• Zone measurement — accurate distance from the qualifying school location and alleged public area or business; verify the actual map and statutory 1,000-foot rule
• Protected facility — must meet the particular charged statute’s school or facility definition and timing rule
• Underlying offense knowledge — test the charged drug offense without inventing school-proximity knowledge
• Underlying charge — if the qualifying predicate conviction is not established, the dependent section 11353.6 term cannot be imposed; other counts may still remain.

INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS

Defense One: Independent Zone Measurement Challenge

A measurement challenge is useful when the alleged place may lie near the statutory boundary. Obtain the complaint, school parcel map, public-area or business designation, time records and location evidence before ordering a survey. An accurate measurement outside the covered zone can defeat that location allegation, but the listed underlying offense and other proof remain separate. The defense should also check adult status, school type, covered hours or minors’ use, and whether the allegation was charged and found true.

Which location and distance count? Section 11353.6 covers specified adult drug convictions on qualifying school grounds or in a covered public area or business within 1,000 feet of an elementary, vocational, junior high or high school. It also has school-hours or minors-using-the-facility conditions. A street address, a school sign, or a map circle does not establish all these elements. Compare the charged location, school parcel and program records with the prosecution’s map and the statutory definition. The measurement may be disputed, but an assumed fence line or walking route is not a universal defense.

Test the actual map and conduct location. A defense review can compare parcel records, contemporaneous location evidence, survey coordinates and the prosecution’s chosen starting and ending points. The question is whether the alleged conduct falls within the specific statutory location, not whether a person would need to walk farther around buildings or traffic. A contested measurement should be checked by appropriate records or a qualified professional rather than inferred from an online map alone.

Measurement methods: Ask how the alleged location and school parcel boundary were identified, what device or map was used, and whether the parties used the same points. A wheel, GPS reading or online map may have limitations in a disputed boundary case; the defense should compare parcel records and, where useful, a licensed survey. No routine law-enforcement error rate or automatic exclusion follows from the tool alone.

A surveyor may be useful when the charged location is near a statutory boundary or a map is disputed. The defense can first identify the precise alleged conduct, school type, public area or business, and relevant dates. A survey cannot by itself decide whether an offense was proved, whether a school program was open, or whether the allegation was properly charged and found true. Those are separate factual and legal questions.

Defense Two: Protected Facility Challenge — Qualifying School and Statutory Time

California's school zone statutes do not apply to every building that looks like a school or that is used for educational purposes. For section 11353.6, identify the listed school and whether the required classes, programs or minors’ use occurred at the alleged time; another count can have a different facility definition. Three specific categories of facility challenges arise frequently:

The closed or relocated facility: Determine whether the named school qualified when the alleged conduct occurred and whether classes or school-related programs were open or minors were using the facility as the statute requires. A permanent closure or relocation before that date may matter. A temporary closure does not automatically erase the facility or the allegation; compare school records, dates and the charged location.

Check the facility named in the count. Section 11353.6 identifies public or private elementary, vocational, junior high and high schools. Section 11353.1 has a different minor-related offense and facility framework. A college, day-care site or playground should not simply be placed into the section 11353.6 category without a specific applicable statute. Obtain the charging document and the facility’s actual status at the alleged time.

The inactive facility: A school that was not in active session at the time of the alleged offense — depending on the specific statute's requirements — may not qualify. The seasonal and daily operations of the specific school alleged are examined where the statute's requirements are tied to operational status.

Defense Three: Knowledge Challenge

Read the charged statute before claiming a knowledge defense. Section 11353.6 requires proof of its listed offense, adult status, covered location, timing, and a charged and proved enhancement allegation; it does not list knowledge of the school’s proximity as a separate element. Statements about what a person saw may still matter to a different charged offense or to the reliability of location evidence. No school sign or hidden campus alone defeats a section 11353.6 allegation.

Location evidence can still matter. Photographs, signs, school records and maps may help locate the alleged conduct or show whether a facility and its schedule fit the charged statute. For the underlying drug offense, separately review knowledge of the controlled nature of the material and any disputed control or sale intent. Lack of a visible school sign alone is not a defense to section 11353.6.

Defense Four: Suppression of the Underlying Charge

A search challenge can be important if it excludes evidence needed to prove the listed predicate. The defense must establish standing and a constitutional violation; the court decides the scope of exclusion. Other evidence may remain, and dismissal of the underlying count or dependent allegation is a separate determination. Preserve the stop, search, warrant and inventory records and compare them with the charged location and offense.

Common suppression grounds include warrantless vehicle searches lacking probable cause, warrantless home entries without valid exigent circumstances, unlawful traffic stops as the foundation of the drug search, and Franks v. Delaware challenges to warrant affidavits containing material falsehoods. If a suppression motion succeeds, identify precisely which evidence was excluded; the remaining proof and actual disposition determine whether the underlying count or dependent allegation is dismissed.

Defense Five: Underlying Charge Defenses — Defeating the Predicate

Every school zone enhancement is predicated on an underlying drug offense — and defeating the predicate defeats the enhancement. Evidence of personal use can dispute a possession-for-sale theory, but the prosecutor or court must actually resolve the charged sale predicate before any dependent enhancement falls. A successful knowledge challenge can defeat a charged possession charge, if that predicate is actually part of the school-zone count. For constructive possession in a shared space, the prosecution still must prove the charged control and knowledge elements; mere sharing of a room neither proves nor defeats possession by itself. Any successful challenge to the underlying drug charge — regardless of the specific defense — also defeats the school zone enhancement by eliminating its required predicate.

Defense Six: Federal 21 U.S.C. § 860 Challenge

In federal drug cases where the school zone enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 860 is alleged, the enhancement can raise the otherwise applicable maximum and impose at least one year or the applicable minimum under section 841(b), whichever is greater, subject to its specific provisions — requiring a count-specific comparison with the section 841(b) quantity tier rather than automatic doubling of five or ten years. A proved federal zone allegation changes maximum punishment and may alter the applicable minimum — making the measurement challenge even more critical than in state cases.

A federal section 860 count needs its own analysis: the indictment, listed school or other protected place, location, and underlying section 841(a)(1) or 856 conduct. Federal protected locations and distance rules differ from section 11353.6, and the maximum and minimum sentencing rules also differ. Test suppression, quantity, conspiracy, and any applicable sentencing relief against their own elements. A successful section 860 challenge removes its particular sentencing effect but does not decide the underlying federal count or automatically erase a section 841(b) minimum.

Defense Seven: Charge Reduction and Negotiation

A contested boundary and a viable underlying-count defense can inform plea negotiations, but a near-boundary survey or motion does not guarantee a reduced count. First test the listed predicate, adult status, qualifying place, relevant time, location measurement and charging allegation; then compare any proposal with the sentencing and immigration consequences of the actual disposition.

Defense Eight: Diversion for the Underlying Charge

Penal Code section 1000 is a current pretrial-diversion path for specified eligible offenses, including some simple-possession counts, not an automatic option for sale or manufacture predicates under section 11353.6. A charged sale count may be contested or resolved to a different count, but counsel must assess that result and the person’s eligibility before discussing diversion. A diversion order and successful completion can have distinct record and immigration effects; neither dismissal nor a clean record follows from a proposed reduction alone. Review the PC 1000 guide for the statutory process.

SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATIONS AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

Immigration analysis should start with the underlying conviction and precise record, then assess any effect of a school-zone term; the term does not automatically create a separate aggravated-felony classification. Review all proposed pleas with qualified immigration counsel before disposition.

Federal Immigration Consequences

The underlying drug conviction that serves as the predicate for the school zone enhancement carries its own immigration consequences — and the enhancement compounds the overall picture:

• Controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — the underlying drug conviction triggers deportability for non-U.S. citizens convicted after admission
• Aggravated felony drug trafficking under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — a drug sale conviction with a school zone enhancement constitutes an aggravated felony, triggering possible removal consequences requiring individualized classification and relief analysis, including for permanent residents
• The school zone enhancement's effect on the sentence imposed can affect the immigration classification analysis in some circumstances — because sentence length is relevant to certain immigration consequence determinations

What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:

• The immigration consequences of the specific underlying drug charge and the school zone enhancement combined must be analyzed before any plea is entered — including whether the specific charge with the enhancement constitutes a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), or both; and whether the enhancement's effect on the sentence affects the immigration classification
• Suppression and immigration analysis should address the exact charge before any plea; a dismissal may avoid conviction-based consequences, but cannot be described as eliminating every immigration issue; this is more protective than any outcome that results in a conviction, even a reduced one
• The zone measurement challenge must be pursued simultaneously with every other defense — because defeating the enhancement reduces the overall sentencing exposure in a way that may affect the immigration consequence analysis, and a successful challenge to the underlying count may change conviction-based immigration consequences but requires individualized advice
• No plea to any drug charge with a school zone enhancement should be entered without a full understanding of the combined immigration consequences of the underlying conviction and the enhancement, and a clear assessment of whether the measurement challenge, suppression, or underlying charge reduction is achievable on the specific facts

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every school zone drug case.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS SCHOOL ZONE CASES

The firm describes statewide criminal defense availability and case-specific review. A school-zone response begins with the complaint, listed drug count, location, school records, relevant time, and any search issue. Counsel may seek a survey when a boundary is genuinely disputed; no survey, suppression motion, staffing arrangement or immigration result is guaranteed at first contact.

Core strategies pursued simultaneously from day one:

Review the prosecution’s map, school property boundary, actual offense location and relevant dates. A licensed surveyor can be retained when measurement is genuinely disputed; it is not needed in every case and a survey cannot resolve the other elements.

Protected facility analysis — specific facility identified and legal qualification status analyzed; operating status, facility type, and statutory definition compliance examined.

Suppression analysis — immediate evidence preservation — every search examined for constitutional defects; dashcam, body camera, and surveillance footage preservation demands issued before footage is overwritten.

Underlying charge defenses — personal use, knowledge challenge, constructive possession, and all other predicate offense challenges assessed simultaneously with zone challenges.

Diversion and reduction assessment — PC 1000, PC § 1001.95, and all available diversion pathways for the underlying charge assessed from the first consultation.

Immigration analysis — immigration consequences of every available resolution analyzed before any plea is entered; zone challenge and suppression pursued as immigration protection priorities.

Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The prosecution must prove the zone distance, the qualifying facility, and the underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Common resolutions:

• Zone measurement challenge succeeded — independent licensed surveyor established offense location outside 1,000-foot zone when measured correctly from school boundary; enhancement dismissed; base sentence imposed without mandatory additional years
• Protected facility found not qualifying — alleged school found to have been closed and repurposed prior to offense; not an active qualifying facility; enhancement dismissed
• Firm-reported enhancement result — commercial-district location and school visibility were contested; review the actual charged count and record to identify the element or resolution on which the outcome rested
• Firm-reported result: a search motion and disposition reportedly ended both the underlying count and dependent allegation. A successful motion excludes specified evidence; the record must show whether remaining proof supported any count.
• Underlying charge reduced — possession-for-sale reduced to simple possession through personal use defense; HS § 11353.6 sale predicate eliminated; enhancement dismissed; PC 1000 diversion pursued
• Federal 21 U.S.C. § 860 enhancement defeated — independent measurement in federal case established distribution location outside 1,000-foot zone boundary; the charged § 860 sentencing effect removed; sentence significantly reduced
• Firm-reported diversion result — underlying count resolved through PC 1000; assess the actual order and completion record before describing dismissal or record effect
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen; zone measurement challenge and suppression motion pursued simultaneously; charge dismissed without any plea; reported conviction-based immigration risk avoided; other consequences require individual review

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles school zone drug case defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because independent measurement analysis must begin immediately, the prosecution's zone theory is most effectively challenged before the preliminary hearing, and the underlying drug evidence must be preserved for suppression before video footage is overwritten.

Straight talk: A location outside the covered zone, a nonqualifying school or time, a failure of the listed drug predicate, or an evidence ruling can change a case. No survey or suppression order alone guarantees dismissal. Check the charged statute and the court’s actual finding before treating a defense as established.

Multi-front defense — every strategy pursued simultaneously

Zone measurement challenge, facility qualification analysis, knowledge challenge, suppression, underlying charge defense, and diversion are all assessed simultaneously. The most powerful defense in any school zone case depends on the specific facts — and all available defenses are identified from the first consultation.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a school zone drug enhancement goes without experienced legal representation.

Representative Results:

• HS § 11353.6 enhancement dismissed — independent licensed surveyor's measurement established offense location was outside the 1,000-foot zone when measured correctly from the school property boundary rather than the building; law enforcement's field measurement found to have used the building as the starting point; enhancement dismissed; base drug sentence imposed without mandatory additional years
• Protected facility challenge succeeded — building alleged to be a qualifying school found to have been permanently closed and repurposed as a community center prior to the alleged offense; not an active qualifying school under HS § 11353.6; enhancement dismissed
• Firm-reported enhancement result — commercial-district location and school visibility were contested; the particular charge and record must establish which element or resolution was decisive
• Firm-reported search result: a vehicle-search challenge reportedly led to exclusion and dismissal of the underlying sale count; the dependent section 11353.6 term then could not be imposed. The exact ruling, remaining evidence and other counts must be checked in any new case.
• Underlying charge reduced — possession-for-sale charge; personal use defense raised; prosecution agreed to reduction to simple possession; HS § 11353.6 sale predicate eliminated; enhancement dismissed; current PC 1000 pretrial-diversion eligibility pursued for the reduced possession charge; no felony conviction recorded
• Firm-reported federal location result: a measurement reportedly put the conduct outside the protected distance, changing the section 860 charge or sentencing issue. The federal statute has its own covered locations, predicates and sentencing rules; another federal count may remain.
• Firm-reported diversion result: a possession count reportedly proceeded through Penal Code section 1000. The court order and completion record determine dismissal and record effects. Section 11353.6 itself requires a listed sale or similar predicate; a simple-possession count does not become a school-zone count merely because it occurred nearby.
• Firm-reported immigration-related result: a trafficking count was reportedly dismissed after location and search challenges. The actual record, other allegations and immigration status determine any continuing consequences; a dismissal should not be labeled universally immigration-safe.

Client Feedback:

"The prosecution claimed I was within 1,000 feet of a school. David brought in a licensed surveyor who showed the correct measurement from the boundary — not the building — put me outside the zone. The enhancement was dismissed. I didn't know the measurement method mattered that much." — Anonymous former client

The preceding firm-published account describes a reported boundary result. Section 11353.6 also requires adult status, a listed predicate, covered place and time, and a separately charged and proved allegation; survey distance alone is not the entire test.

"They used a building that had been closed and turned into something else as the 'school' in the school zone charge. David proved it hadn't been an active school for years and didn't qualify. The enhancement was thrown out completely." — Anonymous former client

The preceding firm-published account concerns one reported closure. A site’s status must be evaluated at the alleged offense time and against the charged statute; temporary closure does not automatically defeat an otherwise qualifying allegation.

"The search of my car was unconstitutional. David challenged it, got the evidence suppressed, the underlying drug charge was dismissed, and the school zone enhancement went with it. One motion took down both charges." — Anonymous former client

The preceding firm-published account reports dismissal in one case. A search order excludes the evidence identified by the ruling; whether the underlying count and dependent term fall depends on the other proof and resulting court disposition.

"As a non-citizen, the drug sale charge with the school zone enhancement would have meant mandatory deportation. David challenged the zone measurement and the search at the same time. The case was dismissed without any plea and my immigration status is protected." — Anonymous former client

The preceding firm-published account does not establish mandatory removal or complete protection in a different case. Immigration consequences require the final criminal and immigration records, status and possible relief to be reviewed together.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How is the 1,000-foot zone actually measured — and why does measurement matter so much?

Section 11353.6 asks whether the specified conduct took place on covered school grounds or in a qualifying public area or business within 1,000 feet of a covered school during the required hours or use. Review the complaint, where the alleged conduct actually occurred, school and parcel records, and the prosecution’s measurement. A survey or independent mapping may expose an error, but a building-versus-fence assumption, road distance, or lack of visible signage is not a complete rule by itself.

Does every school-like building trigger the enhancement?

The answer depends on the exact charged statute. Section 11353.6 names elementary, vocational, junior high and high schools and requires its stated school-hours or minors-using-the-facility condition. A closed, relocated or repurposed site raises a real proof question, but a temporary closure or another educational facility cannot be decided by appearance alone. Section 11353.1 addresses a different minor-related predicate and facility list; examine the count and contemporaneous records.

Can the enhancement be defeated even if drugs were found?

Yes, if a required element is not proved or the allegation was not properly charged and found true. The defense can examine the specified underlying offense and substance, adult status, location and distance, listed school type, and whether classes or school-related programs were open or minors were using the facility at the alleged time. The school-zone term is not automatic merely because a school appears on a nearby map. Section 11353.6(d) requires the allegation in the accusatory pleading and an admission or true finding; subsection (f) also gives the court discretion to strike additional punishment for stated mitigating reasons. Review those issues separately from any defense to the underlying drug charge. Section 11353.6 does not make awareness of the school’s proximity a standalone element, and a defense to one issue does not automatically resolve a different charged count. The exact complaint, relevant school records, police location evidence and hearing dates are the useful starting materials.

What about immigration consequences?

An underlying drug-sale conviction may have serious controlled-substance or drug-trafficking immigration consequences. The classification depends on the particular statute and record; the section 11353.6 term must be considered separately. Seek individualized immigration analysis before a plea rather than assuming one deportation outcome for every defendant.

Is diversion possible?

For the underlying possession charge in many cases — current PC 1000 pretrial diversion if eligible, PC § 1001.95, and other diversion options. Where the underlying sale charge can be reduced to a possession charge through the personal use defense or negotiation, the possession charge may then qualify for PC 1000 diversion. If the base charge is resolved without a qualifying listed predicate conviction, section 11353.6 cannot attach; a reduction to another listed predicate does not automatically remove it.

Does the federal school zone enhancement apply to state charges?

No. Section 860 is a federal drug statute and applies to specified distribution, possession-with-intent or manufacturing conduct near its listed facilities. For a first offense it can double the section 841(b) maximum and supervised-release term, while the imprisonment minimum is generally one year unless section 841(b) supplies a greater minimum; the statute includes a narrow marijuana exception. It does not automatically double every five- or ten-year mandatory minimum. Compare the exact federal count and location.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a school zone drug enhancement goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.

More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174

FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7

A section 11353.6 allegation should be checked against the complaint before anyone assumes a school-zone term applies. The statute is limited to adults convicted of listed drug offenses involving the specified controlled substances or a conspiracy to commit one of those offenses. It covers conduct on school grounds or in a qualifying public area or business within 1,000 feet of a listed school during the required school hours or minors’ use. The additional three-, four- or five-year term is imposed at the court’s discretion only when the allegation was charged and admitted or found true; the statute also permits a mitigation strike with reasons stated on the record. Section 11353.1 is a different minor-related provision. A general allegation that drugs were found “near a school” leaves important legal questions unanswered.

Start with the police report and complaint: which conduct is alleged, which drug and underlying section are named, and what date and exact location does the prosecutor rely on? Preserve the street address, any map or survey, business or public-area description, school calendar, and any photographs or video that show where the alleged transaction occurred. A survey may help when the location is disputed, but it does not answer whether the charged offense happened or whether the facility and timing satisfy the statute. Check the underlying search and seizure separately. If evidence was obtained unlawfully, a suppression motion may affect the drug count; success depends on standing, facts and applicable exceptions, not merely an officer’s lack of a warrant.

Federal section 860 uses a different list of drug predicates and protected locations. For a first federal offense it can double the applicable section 841(b) maximum and supervised-release term, but its imprisonment minimum is generally one year unless the underlying section 841(b) minimum is greater; it does not automatically double every minimum. Compare the actual federal indictment rather than importing the California 1,000-foot or school-hours rule. For a noncitizen, obtain case-specific immigration advice before entering a plea or diversion agreement. Drug-offense and trafficking classifications can have serious effects, but a charge, dismissal, reduction or school-zone allegation does not yield a universal immigration answer. Discuss realistic evidence-preservation and court deadlines with counsel early; no map, motion or survey guarantees dismissal.

Don't assume the measurement is correct. Don't assume the school qualifies. Don't assume the drug evidence cannot be suppressed. And don't wait. If you have been charged with any drug offense with a school zone enhancement in California, call now.

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Honest assessment of the zone, the search, and every available defense.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing a school zone drug enhancement goes without the experienced defense this case demands.

David Chesley handles school zone drug enhancement defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.

Se habla español.

📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com

"School zone enhancements add mandatory years based on a precise 1,000-foot measurement from the school boundary and a qualifying active facility — requirements that are frequently not met. My commitment is challenging the zone through independent surveyor analysis, contesting the underlying charge through suppression and substantive defenses, and pursuing every available reduction or diversion pathway from the first day." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney

The preceding attorney statement is firm-supplied. Section 11353.6 includes listed adult drug predicates, a specified school location and statutory time, a charged-and-proved allegation, and mitigation authority; measurement is one element. A particular case outcome cannot be inferred from a boundary concern alone.