United States v. Travia
180 F. Supp. 2d 115, 2001 WL 1698989, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22088 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's (FDCA) prohibition against distributing misbranded drugs applies to any individual, not just medical professionals or commercial entities. An article's classification as a 'drug' is determined by the seller's objective intent for its use, which can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the sale even in the absence of labeling or advertising.
Facts:
- On June 9, 2001, the defendants were located in the parking lot of RFK Stadium during a rock concert.
- An undercover D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officer approached the defendants.
- The officer gave the defendants pre-recorded funds.
- In exchange for the money, the defendants provided the officer with balloons containing nitrous oxide gas.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government filed one-count criminal informations against each of the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- At a plea hearing, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte questioned whether the FDCA applied to the defendants' conduct.
- After receiving briefs from the parties, the Magistrate Judge issued a bench ruling dismissing the criminal informations and complaints with prejudice, finding the FDCA did not apply to these individuals.
- The government (as appellant) appealed the Magistrate Judge's dismissal to the U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which prohibits the distribution of misbranded drugs, apply to individuals who are not medical professionals or commercial distributors when they sell nitrous oxide in balloons for recreational inhalation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan
Yes. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) applies to individuals distributing misbranded drugs, regardless of whether they are medical or commercial professionals. First, nitrous oxide qualifies as a 'drug' under the FDCA, which defines a drug as an article 'intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man.' This 'intended use' is determined by the seller's objective intent, which can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, such as selling balloons of laughing gas in a concert parking lot. The absence of labeling does not prevent this classification; in fact, it may bolster the evidence of intent to sell a mind-altering substance without a prescription. Second, the FDCA's criminal liability provisions apply to '[a]ny person,' and the statute explicitly defines 'person' to include an 'individual.' The statute's plain language does not limit its application to professionals, and its remedial purpose of protecting public health supports a broad construction. Finally, the FDCA is not unconstitutionally vague as applied here because its text provides sufficient notice to an ordinary person that distributing unlabeled, mind-altering substances is prohibited.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the practical application of the FDCA's criminal provisions beyond the traditional context of manufacturers, pharmacists, and medical professionals. It establishes that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the 'intended use' of a substance, allowing prosecution even for products that have legitimate uses but are sold for recreational, mind-altering purposes without explicit claims. By affirming that 'any person' includes street-level distributors, the ruling provides federal prosecutors with a powerful tool to combat the illicit distribution of substances that may not be scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act. This precedent solidifies the FDCA as a flexible public health statute applicable to a wide range of unauthorized distribution conduct.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Travia