Opinion ID: 110661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Designed for use

Text: The Court of Appeals objected that designed . . . for use is ambiguous with respect to whether items must be inherently suited only for drug use; whether the retailer's intent or manner of display is relevant; and whether the intent of a third party, the manufacturer, is critical, since the manufacturer is the designer. 639 F. 2d, at 380-381. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that this language is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court of Appeals' speculation about the meaning of design is largely unfounded. The guidelines refer to paper of colorful design and to other specific items as conclusively designed or not designed for illegal use. [18] A principal meaning of design is [t]o fashion according to a plan. Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 707 (2d ed. 1957). Cf. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 454, n. 3 (1939). It is therefore plain that the standard encompasses at least an item that is principally used with illegal drugs by virtue of its objective features, i. e., features designed by the manufacturer. A business person of ordinary intelligence would understand that this term refers to the design of the manufacturer, not the intent of the retailer or customer. It is also sufficiently clear that items which are principally used for nondrug purposes, such as ordinary pipes, are not designed for use with illegal drugs. Moreover, no issue of fair warning is present in this case, since Flipside concedes that the phrase refers to structural characteristics of an item. [19] The ordinance and guidelines do contain ambiguities. Nevertheless, the designed for use standard is sufficiently clear to cover at least some of the items that Flipside sold. The ordinance, through the guidelines, explicitly regulates roach clips. Flipside's co-operator admitted that the store sold such items, see Tr. 26, 30, and the village Chief of Police testified that he had never seen a roach clip used for any purpose other than to smoke cannabis. App. 52. The Chief also testified that a specially designed pipe that Flipside marketed is typically used to smoke marihuana. Ibid. Whether further guidelines, administrative rules, or enforcement policy will clarify the more ambiguous scope of the standard in other respects is of no concern in this facial challenge.