The Supreme Court/The Supreme Court.iso/pc/ascii/1992/92_903/92_903.zs

Text File | 1994-05-22 | 3.5 KB | 67 lines

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

POSTERS `N' THINGS, LTD., et al. v. UNITED
STATES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the eighth circuit
No. 92-903.   Argued October 5, 1993-Decided May 23, 1994

Upon searching petitioner Acty's residence and the premises of her
 business, petitioner Posters `N' Things, Ltd., officers seized, among
 other things, pipes, ``bongs,'' scales, ``roach clips,'' drug diluents,
 and advertisements describing various drug-related products sold
 by petitioners.  Petitioners were indicted on, and convicted in the
 District Court of, a number of charges, including the use of an
 interstate conveyance as part of a scheme to sell drug parapherna-
 lia in violation of former 21 U. S. C. 857(a)(1), a provision of the
 Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act.  In affirming, the
 Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that 857 requires proof of
 scienter and that the Act is not unconstitutionally vague.
Held:
  1.  Section 857 requires proof of scienter.  Section 857(d)-
which, among other things, defines ``drug paraphernalia'' as any
equipment ``primarily intended or designed for use'' with illegal
drugs-does not serve as the basis for a subjective-intent require-
ment on the part of the defendant, but merely establishes objective
standards for determining what constitutes drug parapherna-
lia: The ``designed for use'' element refers to the manufacturer's
design, while the ``primarily intended . . . for use'' standard refers
generally to an item's likely use.  However, neither this conclusion
nor the absence of the word ``knowingly'' in 857(d)'s text means
that Congress intended to dispense entirely with a scienter re-
quirement.  Rather, 857(a)(1) is properly construed under this
Court's decisions as requiring the Government to prove that the
defendant knowingly made use of an interstate conveyance as part
of a scheme to sell items that he knew were likely to be used with
illegal drugs.  It need not prove specific knowledge that the items
are ``drug paraphernalia'' within the statute's meaning.  Pp. 3-12.
  2.  Section 857 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to
petitioners, since 857(d) is sufficiently determinate with respect to
the items it lists as constituting per se drug paraphernalia, includ-
ing many of the items involved in this case; since 857(e) sets
forth objective criteria for assessing whether items constitute drug
paraphernalia; and since the scienter requirement herein inferred
assists in avoiding any vagueness problem.  Because petitioners
operated a full-scale ``head shop'' devoted substantially to the sale
of drug paraphernalia, the Court need not address 857's possible
application to a legitimate merchant selling only items-such as
scales, razor blades, and mirrors-that may be used for legitimate
as well as illegitimate purposes.  Pp. 13-14.
  3.  Petitioner Acty's other contentions are not properly before
the Court.  Pp. 14-15.
969 F. 2d 652, affirmed.
 Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehn-
quist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.,
joined.  Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
which Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined.