And there is no reason to believe that it should. In both statutes, Congress undisputedly delegated authority to the Executive Branch to either “deem[],” 21 U.S.C. § 387a(b), or “determine[],” 18 U.S.C. § 841 (1976), whether certain congressionally imposed obligations shall apply to particular products. In both statutes, Congress declined to provide any explicit triggering criteria, or to require any particular predicate factual finding.

______________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, BRIEF IN SUPPORT, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING William Michael Johnson is charged in a two-count indictment. Count one charges Mr. Johnson with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii); count two charges him with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), and § 2. Through his attorney, Sharon A. Turek, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, the defendant hereby moves for the suppression of evidence in this case, because the evidence was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights.