Document: 344 U.S. 174 73 S.Ct. 189 97 L.Ed. 200 UNITED STATESv.CARDIFF. No. 27. Argued Nov. 17, 1952. Decided Dec. 8, Mr. James L. Morrisson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John Lichty, Portland, Or., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent was convicted violating § 301(f) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. 331(f), U.S.C.A. 331(f). That section prohibits 'The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by 704.'1 Section 704, 374, authorizes federal officers employees 'after first making request obtaining permission owner, operator, custodian' plant factory 'to enter' inspect' establishment, equipment, materials like 'at reasonable times'.2 2 is president a corporation which processes apples at Yakima, shipment in interstate commerce. Authorized agents applied respondent enter inspect his hours. He refused permission, it that basis information filed against him under he fined. 95 F.Supp. 206. The Court Appeals reversed, holding 301(f), when read with only if such has previously been granted. 9 Cir., 194 F.2d 686. case here on certiorari. 3 Department urges us prohibiting any time. It argues construction needed Act have real sanctions benign purposes are be realized. points out become primary investigative device enforcement this law, from inspections about 80 percent violations discovered, small force inspectors makes inspection, rather than random sampling finished goods, effective method enforcing Act. 4 All says may true. But does not enable make sense statute. Nowhere say manager must allow hour. 704 condition 'making permission'. backs sanction. would seem therefore face statute Under view illegal revocation once given, failure give permission. breed host problems. Would given carry criminal penalty no matter how long ago granted had relation demanded? Or revoked relate demand prosecution based? Those uncertainties pregnant danger regulated business. alternative pressed equally treacherous because gives conflicting commands. dependent consent crime. However we think fair warning, cf. United States v. Weitzel, 246 533, 38 381, 62 872; McBoyle States, 283 25, 51 340, 75 816, fails consent, criminal. vice vagueness statutes treachery they conceal either determining what persons included acts prohibited. Words vague fluid, Cohen Grocery Co., 255 81, 41 298, 65 516, much trap innocent ancient laws Caligula. We cannot sanction taking man heels refusing grant its apparently gave right withhold. an act without notice. Cf. Herndon Lowry, 301 242, 57 732, 81 1066. 5 Affirmed. 6 JACKSON concurs result. 7 BURTON dissents. violation made misdemeanor 333, 333. reads follows: 'For act, duly designated Administrator, after custodian thereof, (1) enter, times, factory, warehouse, establishment food, drugs, devices, cosmetics manufactured, processed, packed, held, introduction into commerce held introduction, vehicle being used transport hold commerce; (2) inspect, all pertinent unfinished materials, containers, labeling therein.'

Category: 3