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

submitted 40 years ago by Pub. L. 91-513 to r/title-21-FOOD-AND-DRUGS · 286 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

It is illegal to knowingly maintain, rent, or manage a place for making, storing, or using controlled substances. Violators face up to 20 years in prison and large fines. Courts can also impose civil penalties and order the activity stopped.

(a) Except when this subchapter allows it, two things are illegal. First, it is illegal to knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, even temporarily. This is illegal if the purpose is to manufacture, distribute, or use a controlled substance. Second, it is illegal to manage or control a place. This applies whether a person acts as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee. It is illegal for that person to knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make the place available, with or without payment. This is illegal if the purpose is unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

(b) A person who breaks these rules faces up to 20 years in prison. That person can also face a fine of up to $500,000, or both punishments together. If the violator is not an individual — for example, a company — the fine can be up to $2,000,000.

(c) A violation of this section counts as a crime against property. This applies for purposes of a separate restitution law.

(d) A person who breaks these rules can also face a civil penalty. This penalty is either $250,000 or twice the money made from the violation, whichever is greater. Sometimes a court sets the penalty based on the money made, and there is more than one defendant. In that case, the court can divide the penalty among them. Each defendant still remains fully responsible for the whole civil penalty.

(e) A person who breaks these rules can also face court orders. A court can declare the violation illegal, or order it to stop, under a separate section of this title.

facts

- Codified at 21 U.S.C. § 856, titled "Maintaining drug-involved premises," part of the Controlled Substances Act framework in Title 21. - Originally enacted as part of Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 416, added by Pub. L. 99–570, § 1841(a), on October 27, 1986 (100 Stat. 3207–52). - Subsequently amended twice: by Pub. L. 106–310 (2000) and Pub. L. 108–21 (2003), for a total of 4 amendment actions reflected in the source credit. - The provision spans five subsections (a)–(e), covering unlawful acts, criminal penalties, property-offense classification, civil penalties, and injunctive remedies, totaling 286 words.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

(a) Unlawful acts

Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful to—

(1)

knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;

(2)

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.

(b) Criminal penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $500,000, or both, or a fine of $2,000,000 for a person other than an individual.

A violation of subsection (a) shall be considered an offense against property for purposes of section 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) of title 18.

(d) Civil penalties

(1)

Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of—

(A)

$250,000; or

(B)

2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person.

(2)

If a civil penalty is calculated under paragraph (1)(B), and there is more than 1 defendant, the court may apportion the penalty between multiple violators, but each violator shall be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalty under this subsection.

(e) Declaratory and injunctive remedies

Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to declaratory and injunctive remedies as set forth in section 843(f) of this title.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 416, as added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1841(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–52; amended Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, § 3613(e), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1230; Pub. L. 108–21, title VI, § 608(b)(1), (2), (c), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 691.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1986Enacted · Pub. L. 91-513 · 100 Stat. 3207
2000Amended · Pub. L. 106-310 · 114 Stat. 1230
2003Amended · Pub. L. 108-21 · 117 Stat. 691

The source credit indicates that this section was not part of the original enactment of Public Law 91–513, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, but was added later as Section 416 of Title II of that Act by Public Law 99–570, Title I, § 1841(a), on October 27, 1986. The record shows subsequent amendment activity in 2000, through Public Law 106–310, and in 2003, through Public Law 108–21, each modifying specific subsections rather than the section's core structure. Historical context: Public Law 91–513 is generally understood to be the foundational federal statute establishing the modern framework for regulating controlled substances, including the scheduling system still in use today. The 1986 addition of this particular section occurred amid a period of heightened congressional attention to drug enforcement, commonly associated with legislation such as the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, of which Public Law 99–570 was a part. That broader legislative effort is often described as responding to concerns about drug trafficking and associated criminal activity during that era. Beyond this general context, the record does not establish the specific legislative rationale for targeting premises used to facilitate drug manufacturing or distribution, nor does it document the particular concerns that prompted the 2000 and 2003 amendments. Any more specific account of congressional intent would be speculative and is not supported by the materials provided here.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case