Court Opinion

ID: 9726376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:46:39.807527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:26.591426
License: Public Domain

*473McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The issue of constitutionality was raised here. It rests on the ground that the Legislature may not lawfully delegate its power to create criminal offenses to an administrative or executive official or body. In Lincoln Dairy Co. v. Finigan, 170 Neb. 777, 104 N. W. 2d 227, this court held that the Legislature may not lawfully delegate legislative powers to an administrative or executive authority. In that case, the administrative ¡authority was the Department of Agriculture and Inspection of the State of Nebraska. We also held that: “The Legislature cannot delegate its power to create criminal offenses and prescribe penalties to an administrative or executive authority. Such powers are exclusively legislative * *
The major impact of the Finigan case on the case here is its holding that in this state all public offenses are statutory and no person can be punished for any act or omission which is not made penal by the plain import of a properly enacted statute.
The majority opinion holds that L.B. 876 of the 1967 Legislative Session relating to depressant and stimulant drugs incorporated by reference those portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “which were in existence on June 6, 1967.”
Of course, the Legislature could have incorporated provisions of the federal act as it then existed by reference. The principal specific reference was to section 502(d) (Title 21 U. S. C., § 352). That subsection is headed “Habit forming substances.” It includes both narcotic and hypnotic substances. It describes 16 other substances in addition to the barbituric acid referred to in subsection (8) (a) of section 28-486, R. S. Supp., 1969. Most of these come under the category of narcotics. That subsection also authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by regulation to designate any chemical derivative of the named substances which are found to be habit forming. Subsections (8)(b) and (8)(c) of *474section, 28-486, R. S. Supp., 1969, also refer to “regulations promulgated under the federal act” and not to any provisions of the act itself. The federal act, of course, authorizes promulgation of regulations by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Section 28-485, R. S. Supp., 1969, declares the legislative purpose to regulate and control the manufacture, distribution, delivery, and possession of depressant and stimulant drugs “as defined in sections 28-458 and 28-4.85 to 28-4,108.” Section 28-458, R. S. Supp., 1969, which was section 25' of L.B. 876, 1967 Legislative Session, specifically gives the Nebraska State Board of Health the power “to determine * * * whether any exempt medicinal preparation possesses addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability which, in its opinion, will result in abusive use.” The State Department of Health clearly has the authority to make such preparations exempt or nonexempt.
In legislative debate on L.B. 876, Senator Swanson stated: “Senator Carpenter’s amendment which was also just read has to do with a particular exemption as far as the sale of codeine is concerned, and also the ability of the state health department to place on the illegal drug list, any drug that might presently be cleared. If they find that it is a depressant or a stimulant, if it is a narcotic that should not be on the cleared list, they now have the authority through his amendment to place it on the illegal drug list.” 1967 Legislative Floor Debate, p. 2318.
The definition of “narcotic drugs” adopted by the Legislature iii 1969, in section 28-451, R. S. Supp., 1969, provides: “(14) Narcotic drugs shall mean coca leaves; opium, cannabis, isonipecaine, amidone, isoamidone, ketobemidone, every substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from them, any other drugs to which the federal laws or regulations relating to narcotic drugs may now or hereafter apply, and any drug found by the Director of Health, after reasonable noticé *475and opportunity for hearing, to have addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine or cocaine from the date of publication of such finding by the director.”
Section 28-4,108, R. S. Supp., 1969, also gives the Superintendent of Law Enforcement and Public Welfare the power to make such rules and regulations as are necessary for the effective adrninistration of the act governing depressant and stimulant drugs and specifically gives the authority to “make such rules and regula-, tions conform so far as. practicable to those promulgated under the federal act.”
Even if it be assumed that the Legislature intended to incorporate portions of the federal act, the only specific portions of the federal act ever mentioned or iden-, tiffed by the Legislature are sections 502(d), 511(d), and 511 (f). Section 502 (d) has already been discussed. Section 511(d) deals with records to be kept, and section 511(f) deals with the exemption of depressant and stimulant drugs, by the secretary. Their corresponding code references are Title 21 U. S. C., §§ 352(d), 360a(d), and 360a(f). The depressant or stimulant drugs exempted by the secretary under section 511(f) of the federal act are specifically exempted from the application of the Nebraska law by section 28-4,105, R. S. Supp., 1969;
At no place in the Nebraska act did- the Legislature ever identify any specific regulation under the federal act, either by date or by location, in the federal register. It only referred generally to “regulations promulgated under the federal act.” Surely such an indefinite reference to regulations cannot be treated as a valid incorporation by reference, in a criminal statute involving illegal possession, where a sentence of 5 years in prison for a first offense can be given, as it was here. The drug involved in this case, aside from its identification in the information as a “stimulant or depressant drug,” was referred to only as “a new-found drug.”
The Legislature quite propérly assumed the respon*476sibility of adopting statutes to regulate and control the manufacture, distribution, delivery, and possession of depressant and stimulant drugs. That legislative power can and should be exercised for the public health and safety to create criminal offenses and prescribe penalties. Unless our previous decisions are to be overruled, however, all public offenses in this state are statutory and it is clear that the Legislature cannot delegate its power to create criminal offenses to the Director of Health of the State of Nebraska, much less to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare of the United States. A general reference to administrative regulations under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is wholly insufficient to incorporate a specific unidentified regulation into a Nebraska criminal statute by reference. This is particularly true when the date any incorporation- is to be effective, as well as the date and identification of the elusive regulation or regulations which are to be incorporated, are completely omitted from the statute which is supposed to incorporate them.
It is not only advisable, but essential, that the deficiencies to which reference has been made here be called to the attention of the Legislature. The statutes involved, insofar as they attempted to delegate to a state or federal administrative agency the power to create criminal offenses by designating a particular drug, not legislatively identified in the statute as being proscribed, was clearly unconstitutional.