## Facts

- Ben Diaz was prosecuted under the Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. § 433, for appropriating “objects of antiquity” on federally owned and controlled land without a permit.
- The charged “objects” were face masks removed from a cave on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, which was under federal control.
- A San Carlos medicine man testified the masks were made in 1969 or 1970, making them only about three or four years old at the time of the alleged offense.
- An anthropology professor testified the masks were used in Apache religious ceremonies, were traditionally deposited in remote places for religious reasons, and were regarded as sacred; he also opined that an “object of antiquity” could include recently made items tied to long-standing traditions.
- Diaz was convicted in federal district court and appealed, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

## Issues

1. Whether 16 U.S.C. § 433 is void for vagueness because terms such as “object of antiquity” and “historic or prehistoric ruin or monument” are undefined, failing to provide fair notice and inviting arbitrary enforcement.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed Diaz’s conviction.
- The court held § 433 unconstitutionally vague because it provided no clear definition or workable standard for determining what constitutes an “object of antiquity” or related protected items.
- The court concluded the statute did not give persons of ordinary intelligence fair warning of prohibited conduct and lacked explicit enforcement standards.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires criminal statutes to give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and to provide standards that limit arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- A criminal prohibition using broad, undefined, and elastic terms—without authoritative narrowing definitions—may be void for vagueness.
- When statutory coverage depends on highly contextual expert judgments rather than accessible criteria, vagueness concerns are heightened.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Antiquities Act’s undefined terms, including “object of antiquity,” failed due process requirements of fair notice and clear enforcement standards, so the statute could not support Diaz’s criminal conviction.


United States v. Diaz, 499 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1974)