Legal Document

376 U.S. 86 84 Supreme Court Reporter 559 11 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 536 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.WIESENFELD WAREHOUSE COMPANY. Number 92. Argued Jan. 16, 1964. Decided Feb. 17, Louis Federal KF105 F3 Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for appellant. James S. Taylor, Jacksonville, Fla., appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Section 301(k) Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits 'alteration, mutilation, destruction, obligteration, or removal whole any part labeling of, doing other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, cosmetic, if such is done while article held sale * after shipment in interstate commerce results being adulterated misbranded.'1 402 provides, among things, that '(a) food shall be deemed to adulterated—(a) (3) it consists filthy, putrid, decomposed substance, otherwise unfit food; (4) has been prepared, packed, under insanitary conditions whereby may have become contaminated filth, rendered injurious health *'.2 The question presented by this appeal whether criminal information which alleges holding public storage warehouseman (after before ultimate sale) building accessible rodents, birds insects, where charges an offense § 301(k). 2 Government filed containing allegations effec3 District Middle Florida, charging appellee, warehouseman, violations court construed as not applying mere 'holding' goods, dismissed failure allege statute. 217 F.Supp. 638, 639. order dismissal was appealed Criminal Appeals Act, gives jurisdiction review on direct judgment dismissing basis 'construction statute upon founded.'4 We noted probable jurisdiction. 373 921, 83 1522, 10 421. For reasons follow, we reverse 3 In arriving at its construction statute, reasoned 'as presently written, too vague indefinite apply goods.' F.Supp., Accordingly, 'in effort uphold constitutional,' applied rule ejusdem generis limit words 'the act' acts same general nature' those specifically enumerated subsection, i.e., relating alteration, obliteration, articles. Ibid. find reliance misplaced; application contrary both text legislative history unnecessary constitutionally permissible 4 language unambiguously defines two distinct offenses shipment. As originally enacted 1938, subsection prohibited '(t)he multilation, removal' label, product 'results misbranded.'5 section amended 1948 prohibit additionally adulterated.'6 original enactment relate ofeense misbranding through lack thereof. separate adulteration, hand, concerned solely deterioration contamination commodity itself. most part, resulting adulteration are wholly distinct. Consequently, since label-defacing bear no textual logical relation scope condemning adulteration,7 character inappropriate. 5 Moreover, makes plain intended. House Committee Report proposed amendment unequivocally stated: 6 'It seems clear now force would interpreting 'or *,' even more will interpretation bill.'8 7 It equally from Congress intended proscribe particular conduct charged below—the contaminated. 'penalize, misbranding, articles they filth health,' emphasized amendments their fullest constitutional limits.9 8 chose statutory appropriate effectuate purpose. 301(k), amended, 'any product. And 'has filth.'10 This particularity explicit standard conduct. read together definition contained 402(a)(4), therefore, ample warning storing prohibited. 9 settled law area drug regulation guilty intent always prerequisite imposition sanctions. Food legislation, protecting lives human beings, circumstances might unable protect themselves, often 'dispenses conventional requirement conduct—awareness some wrongdoing. interest larger good puts burden acting hazard person innocent but standing responsible danger. versus Balint, 258 250, 42 301, 66 L.Ed. 604.' Dotterweich, 320 277, 281, 64 134, 136, 88 48. argued, nevertheless, case seeking impose sanctions one 'who is, very nature his business powerless' against kind contamination, however high care exercised. Whatever truth claim, involves factual proof raised defensively trial merits. here only relates sufficiency information, reach facts developed evidence adduced trial. Finally, appellee attempts ground relied says bailee seller, within meaning Both purpose refute construction. does title danger regardless proprietary status it, legislation—to safeguard consumer time introduced into channels point consumer—would substantially thwarted unwarranted reading language. Kocmond, Cir., 200 Reporter, 2nd 370, 372; cf. Sullivan, 332 689, 696, 68 331, 335—336, 92 297; 282, 137, 12 hold Act. therefore reversed remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 13 Reversed remanded. 52 Statutes-at-Large 1040, 21 Code KF62 331(k). §§ 342(a)(3) (4). six counts, counts differing involved. Each count had received shipped commerce, sale, caused birds, thus exposing thereby adulterating 402(a) 342(a), consisted filthy wit, rodent excreta, insect larvae, etc., filth. 'An taken behalf district courts all cases following instances: 'From decision setting aside, indictment thereof, based invalidity founded. *' 62 844, 18 3731. 1042, See 297. 582, aware problem. 'The present forbids, first, certain article, and, second, to' itself misbranded. (A)dulteration occurs result Since already contains broad phrase limited preceding enumeration forbidden labeling, there need making applicable change existing regard.' H.R.Rep. 807, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Page 3. Id., Pages 3—4. 6. During Senate hearings amendment, Associate Commissioner Drugs explained 'under bill here, definite showing violation warehouse material stored, prosecution them criminally these conditions, could ensue.' Hearing Subcommittee Interstate Foreign Commerce, Senate, 1190 H.R. 4071, April 1948. note 2, supra.

Classification Label: 7