Payment PlansCharged with a Drug-Free School Zone Violation in California?
A School Zone Enhancement Adds Mandatory Additional Years to an Already Serious Drug Sentence — But the Zone Must Be Proven, the Distance Must Be Measured Accurately, and the Enhancement Is Frequently Challenged and Defeated.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended drug-free school zone enhancements — including HS § 11353.1 and HS § 11353.6 (sale or other drug offenses within 1,000 feet of a school or playground) 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 knowledge element the prosecution needs to prove the enhancement
- Do not assume the zone measurement is accurate — law enforcement measurements are frequently made from the wrong point or with imprecise tools; independent professional verification is essential and frequently defeats the enhancement entirely
- 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
- Contact experienced counsel immediately — independent surveyor analysis must begin quickly; suppression opportunities require immediate evidence preservation; and the prosecution's zone theory is most effectively challenged before it is locked into the charging document
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE STAKES ARE REAL
School zone enhancements add mandatory consecutive years on top of the base drug sentence — often 3 or 5 additional years under HS § 11353.6, and a doubling of mandatory minimums under federal 21 U.S.C. § 860. They turn standard drug cases into much longer prison exposures and carry heavy collateral consequences:
- Permanent felony record with the school zone notation — highly stigmatizing on every background check
- Professional license reporting, discipline, suspension, or revocation for all licensed professionals
- Immigration impact — compounds controlled substance deportability; may push toward aggravated felony status with sale charges
- Enhanced prosecution posture — these cases are treated more aggressively due to the public policy focus on protecting children
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:
| Enhancement | Applies To | Additional Penalty | Common Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| HS § 11353.6 | Sale/transport/manufacture | +3 years (first); +5 years (subsequent) | Measurement, facility qualification |
| HS § 11353.1 | Sale involving minors near school | Additional years | Knowledge, underlying sale proof |
| Federal 21 U.S.C. § 860 | Federal drug distribution | Doubles mandatory minimum/maximum | Measurement, protected location |
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:
- An underlying drug offense — sale, transportation, possession for sale, or manufacture
- The offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a qualifying school or playground
- In some statutes, the defendant knew or reasonably should have known they were within the zone
Key Defense Targets:
- Zone measurement — accurate distance from the school boundary, not the building, using proper methodology
- Protected facility — must be an active, qualifying school or playground at the time of the offense
- Knowledge — defendant unaware of the school's proximity
- Underlying charge — defeat the base drug offense and the enhancement falls automatically
INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS
Defense One: Independent Zone Measurement Challenge
The most important and most frequently successful defense in school zone cases is the independent professional measurement challenge. Law enforcement zone measurements are among the most commonly inaccurate elements in California drug prosecutions — and the specific errors law enforcement makes in school zone measurements are consistent and systematic.
The building vs. boundary error: The most common and most significant law enforcement measurement error is measuring from the school building rather than from the school property boundary. The 1,000-foot zone extends from the boundary of the school's property — the fence line, the property line, or the edge of the school grounds — not from the school building itself. In cases where the school occupies a large campus, the difference between the building measurement and the boundary measurement can be substantial — placing the alleged offense location inside the zone when measured from the building and outside the zone when measured correctly from the boundary. This error alone, identified and corrected by a licensed surveyor, defeats the enhancement entirely in many cases.
The methodology error: California school zone statutes require measurement of the actual distance between the school boundary and the offense location. Some law enforcement measurements use straight-line aerial distance — which does not account for physical obstacles, street layouts, and other geographic features that affect the actual distance. In urban areas where streets and buildings create barriers between the school and the alleged offense location, the difference between an aerial measurement and an accurate ground-level measurement can be significant.
The tool error: Law enforcement field measurements are frequently made with measuring wheels, consumer-grade GPS applications, or online mapping tools that are not professionally calibrated and that produce results with significant error margins. Where the alleged offense location is anywhere near the 1,000-foot boundary, a measurement made with imprecise tools may place the location inside the zone when a professionally calibrated measurement would place it outside.
A licensed surveyor is retained in every school zone case where the distance is contestable — meaning every case where the alleged offense location is anywhere near the 1,000-foot boundary. The surveyor measures from the correct point — the school's property boundary — using the correct methodology — actual ground-level distance — with professionally calibrated instruments. Where the surveyor's measurement establishes the offense was outside the zone, the enhancement is defeated entirely on the facts the prosecution itself is required to establish.
Defense Two: Protected Facility Challenge — Active, Qualifying School or Playground
California's school zone statutes do not apply to every building that looks like a school or that is used for educational purposes. The facility must be an active, operating qualifying school or playground of the type specified by the applicable statute at the time of the alleged offense. Three specific categories of facility challenges arise frequently:
The closed or relocated school: A school that has been permanently closed, temporarily closed for renovation, or relocated to a different building is not an active qualifying facility. Older urban areas in particular often have former school buildings that have been repurposed as community centers, offices, residential units, or other non-school uses — while retaining school-style architecture and sometimes even school signage. Where the alleged "school" in the school zone charge is a closed or repurposed facility, the enhancement is defeated entirely.
The non-qualifying facility type: The statute specifies what types of facilities qualify — public schools, private schools meeting specific criteria, and in some statutes universities and playgrounds. Day care centers, preschools that do not qualify under the specific statute, tutoring centers, and other educational-style facilities that do not meet the statutory definition do not trigger the enhancement. The specific facility type is analyzed against the specific statute charged in every school zone case.
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
Some California school zone statutes require proof that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known they were within the protected zone. Where the statute requires knowledge, the defendant's specific awareness of the school's proximity is developed and challenged. This defense is most powerful where the alleged offense occurred in a commercial or mixed-use area where no school was visible, where no school zone signage was present, where the school was located behind other structures with no sight line from the offense location, or where the neighborhood character did not indicate the presence of a school.
Evidence developed for the knowledge defense includes: photographs and mapping of the offense location showing what was visible from that location; evidence of the presence or absence of school zone signage; evidence of the school's visibility or concealment from the offense location; and the specific circumstances of the defendant's presence at the location and what they knew about the surrounding area.
Defense Four: Suppression of the Underlying Charge
The most powerful defense in any school zone drug case is suppression of the physical drug evidence — because suppression eliminates both the underlying drug charge and the school zone enhancement simultaneously. Without the controlled substance, the prosecution cannot prove the underlying drug offense that is the predicate for the enhancement — and without the predicate, the enhancement has nothing to attach to. Every search in every school zone drug case is examined for Fourth Amendment defects from the first consultation, and preservation demands for dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage are issued immediately upon retention.
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. Where the suppression motion succeeds, both the underlying drug charge and the school zone enhancement are dismissed simultaneously.
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. The personal use defense in a possession-for-sale case eliminates the sale charge to which the school zone enhancement attaches. A knowledge challenge to the underlying possession charge eliminates the possession predicate. A constructive possession challenge in a case where the drugs were found in a shared space eliminates the possession element of the underlying charge. 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 doubles any applicable mandatory minimum and doubles the maximum sentence — turning a 5-year federal mandatory minimum into a 10-year mandatory minimum, and a 10-year mandatory minimum into 20 years. The stakes of the zone measurement are doubled in every federal school zone case — making the measurement challenge even more critical than in state cases.
The same zone measurement challenges, protected facility challenges, and knowledge challenges available in state cases apply in federal cases — combined with the full federal drug defense toolkit of wiretap suppression, quantity challenges, conspiracy element challenges, and safety valve eligibility. Where the federal school zone enhancement is defeated through a successful zone measurement or facility qualification challenge, the mandatory minimum doubling is eliminated — and the sentence exposure is reduced back to the already-serious base federal mandatory minimum, which then becomes the subject of every available federal sentencing defense.
Defense Seven: Charge Reduction and Negotiation
Where the zone measurement is contested and the underlying charge is subject to challenge, the combination of an independent professional measurement that approaches the 1,000-foot boundary and a viable underlying charge defense creates significant negotiating leverage for charge reduction — elimination of the school zone enhancement, reduction of the underlying charge from sale to possession, or both. The negotiating strategy is developed from the specific facts of the measurement, the underlying charge evidence, and the prosecution's specific theory of the case.
Defense Eight: Diversion for the Underlying Charge
Where the underlying offense qualifies for diversion — PC 1000 DEJ for simple possession charges, PC § 1001.95 for qualifying misdemeanor charges — diversion of the underlying charge eliminates both the underlying conviction and the school zone enhancement. 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 — making charge reduction and diversion a combined strategic goal. Every available diversion pathway for the underlying charge is assessed in every school zone case.
SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATIONS AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS
A drug conviction with a school zone enhancement compounds already serious immigration consequences — and the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.
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 mandatory deportation with essentially no discretionary relief available even for long-term lawful 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
- Every suppression opportunity must be assessed as the highest immigration priority — because suppression dismissal produces no conviction and no plea, eliminating all immigration consequences from both the underlying charge and the enhancement simultaneously; 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 defeating the underlying charge through the zone challenge eliminates all immigration consequences entirely
- 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
David Chesley personally handles every case — immediately ordering independent surveyor measurements, preserving evidence for suppression, challenging the underlying drug charge, and coordinating immigration protection. All defenses run in parallel from the first consultation. Southern, Central, and Northern California, every county, every major jurisdiction — available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates.
Core strategies pursued simultaneously from day one:
Independent surveyor retained immediately — prosecution's zone measurement examined for building vs. boundary error, methodology error, and tool accuracy; licensed surveyor retained in every case where distance is contestable.
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
- Knowledge element defeated — defendant in commercial district where school was located behind other structures with no visible signage; knowledge requirement not established; enhancement not sustained
- Suppression granted — unconstitutional search suppressed controlled substance; underlying
drug charge dismissed; school zone enhancement fell with predicate offense - 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; mandatory minimum doubling eliminated; sentence significantly reduced
- Diversion obtained — underlying possession charge diverted through PC 1000 DEJ; no conviction recorded; school zone enhancement had no predicate conviction to attach to; clean record preserved
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen; zone measurement challenge and suppression motion pursued simultaneously; charge dismissed without any plea; all immigration consequences avoided
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, always
School zone cases range from situations where the independent measurement establishes the offense was outside the zone and the enhancement falls — to situations where the search was unconstitutional and suppression eliminates both the underlying charge and the enhancement — to situations where the evidence is stronger and the focus shifts to charge reduction, negotiation to eliminate the enhancement, and immigration protection. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
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
- Knowledge element defeated — defendant alleged to have sold drugs near school in commercial district where school was located behind other commercial structures with no visible school zone signage from the offense location; knowledge requirement of the applicable statute not established beyond reasonable doubt; enhancement not sustained
- Suppression granted — vehicle search found to lack probable cause; controlled substance suppressed as fruit of unlawful stop; underlying sale charge dismissed; HS § 11353.6 school zone enhancement fell with the dismissed predicate offense
- 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; PC 1000 DEJ diversion pursued for the reduced possession charge; no felony conviction recorded
- Federal 21 U.S.C. § 860 enhancement defeated — independent professional measurement in federal drug trafficking case established distribution location was outside 1,000-foot zone when measured correctly from school property boundary; enhancement's mandatory minimum doubling eliminated; sentence exposure reduced significantly
- PC 1000 diversion obtained — underlying HS § 11350 possession charge; PC 1000 DEJ diversion completed; no conviction recorded on underlying charge; school zone enhancement had no predicate conviction to attach to; clean record preserved
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant facing aggravated felony drug trafficking consequences from drug sale charge with HS § 11353.6 enhancement; independent surveyor retained and suppression motion filed simultaneously; both challenges pursued; charge dismissed without any plea; all immigration consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) avoided
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
"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 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
"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
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How is the 1,000-foot zone actually measured — and why does measurement matter so much?
The zone is measured from the boundary of the school's property — the fence line, the property line, or the edge of the school grounds — not from the school building itself. Law enforcement frequently makes the building-vs.-boundary error, which can place the alleged offense location inside the zone when a correct boundary measurement would place it outside. Law enforcement also frequently uses imprecise field tools — measuring wheels, consumer GPS apps, or online mapping tools — that produce results with significant error margins. An independent licensed surveyor measuring correctly from the boundary using professionally calibrated instruments is the gold standard — and in cases where the alleged offense location is anywhere near the 1,000-foot boundary, the surveyor's measurement frequently defeats the enhancement entirely.
Does every school-like building trigger the enhancement?
No — the facility must be an active, qualifying school or playground under the specific statute at the time of the alleged offense. Closed schools, relocated schools, repurposed buildings, day care centers, and other facilities that do not meet the statutory definition do not trigger the enhancement. The specific facility's operating status and statutory qualification are analyzed in every school zone case.
Can the enhancement be defeated even if drugs were found?
Yes — by defeating the zone measurement, the facility qualification, the knowledge requirement, or the underlying drug charge itself. The enhancement is a separate element that must be proven independently of the drug charge — and each of those requirements creates an independent defense opportunity. Defeating any single element defeats the enhancement entirely, regardless of what the evidence shows about the underlying drug activity.
What about immigration consequences?
The combination significantly increases deportability risk. The underlying drug sale conviction constitutes a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — triggering mandatory deportation with almost no relief. Suppression that produces dismissal without any plea is the most immigration-protective outcome. The zone measurement challenge and underlying charge defenses are both pursued as immigration protection priorities.
Is diversion possible?
For the underlying possession charge in many cases — PC 1000 DEJ, 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 diverted or reduced, the school zone enhancement has no predicate conviction to attach to.
Does the federal school zone enhancement apply to state charges?
No — 21 U.S.C. § 860 applies only to federal drug charges. It doubles any applicable mandatory minimum and the maximum sentence for drug distribution within 1,000 feet of a school, making the measurement challenge especially critical in federal cases where the enhancement can turn a 5-year mandatory minimum into 10 years or a 10-year mandatory minimum into 20 years.
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
School zone enhancements add mandatory years based on a measurement that must be accurate and a facility that must qualify — and neither requirement is automatically satisfied. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the prosecution's zone measurement — made with an imprecise field tool from the school building rather than the school boundary, using a methodology that overstates the actual distance — becomes embedded in the charging document as the figure that will determine whether the mandatory additional years apply, without an independent licensed surveyor retained to measure correctly from the right point with the right methodology and defeat the enhancement on the facts before the preliminary hearing locks in the prosecution's distance theory. Every day the dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage that could establish the unconstitutional search — and suppress the controlled substance that is both the underlying charge and the enhancement's predicate — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the 30 to 90 day retention cycle before a defense attorney has had the opportunity to identify the constitutional violation and file the suppression motion that could eliminate both charges simultaneously. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a drug sale charge with a school zone enhancement without immigration-specific analysis of the 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) aggravated felony consequences of the combined conviction is a day the mandatory deportation that the sale conviction with the enhancement produces moves closer to becoming permanent — without the zone measurement challenge and suppression strategy that, pursued immediately, could produce the dismissal without any plea that eliminates all immigration consequences entirely. Every day the alleged protected facility's legal qualification status goes unexamined is a day the prosecution's characterization of a closed, repurposed, or non-qualifying building as an active qualifying school goes uncontested — when a defense attorney examining the facility's history and current operating status today could be identifying the qualification defect that defeats the enhancement entirely and eliminates the mandatory additional years before the first hearing.
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
