| Court: | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
| Facts: | Hermann sold cocaine and meth, and was within 1000 feet of school premises. |
| Posture: | Convicted at trial. |
| Issue: | Does the state have to prove that Hermann knew he was near a school in order to punish him with the sentencing enhancer? |
| Holding: | No, they do not, and he can be punished. |
| Rule: | The statute is a strict liability rule. |
| Reasoning: | Generally, mens rea would be required, but here it has already been shown in the case of the underlying crime (selling drugs). You pretty much accept the risk of punishment when you do stuff like that. Also, strict liability crimes are intended to put would-be criminals on notice of issues of public protection (like keeping drugs away from schools). |
| Dicta: | It would be hard for law enforcement folk to prove whether or not a person knew where school property was. |