State v. Boynton
| Citation | 379 A.2d 994 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1977 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Russell BOYNTON. |
Michael E. Povich, Dist. Atty., James E. Patterson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ellsworth, for plaintiff.
Libhart, Ferris & Dearborn, by Wayne P. Libhart, N. Laurence Willey, Jr., Ellsworth, for defendant.
Before POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ.
Pursuant to the provisions of 12 M.R.S.A. § 4252 1, and prior to the date of the alleged violation, the Hancock County town of Lamoine duly adopted ordinances regulating the digging of shellfish in that town. One ordinance (here invoked) provided for resident shellfish digging licenses, both commercial and non-commercial. 2 Another ordinance provided for similar non-resident shellfish digging licenses.
The Defendant, a Lamoine resident, was charged in District Court with violating the ordinance regulating resident diggers by digging clams in Lamoine on July 22, 1976, without the license required of him by that ordinance.
The case was transferred to Superior Court and was tried jury-waived. There, by appropriate motions, the Defendant unsuccessfully challenged the enabling statute as an illegal delegation of legislative power.
After being adjudged guilty as charged, the Defendant appealed to this Court.
The parties have stipulated that all steps required of a town to adopt an ordinance of this type had been taken in this case. Upon appeal, the Defendant renews his attack upon the enabling statute as illegally delegating legislative power in violation of the state and federal constitutions.
We deny the appeal.
The purpose of the non-delegation doctrine, upon which the Defendant here relies, is to protect the citizen against arbitrary or discriminatory action by public officials. In practice, however, the doctrine has not prevented the delegation of legislative power. Rather, the goal has been to make certain that delegated powers were guided by meaningful standards. Now Professor Davis observes that the focus should no longer be exclusively upon standards but on the totality of protections against arbitrariness, including both safeguards and standards. K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 2.00 (1970 Suppl.). 3
Our Court has recognized that the line of demarcation between a legitimate and an illegitimate delegation of legislative power is often quite dim. Small v. Maine Board of Registration and Examination in Optometry, Me., 293 A.2d 786, 788 (1972). As a general rule, the legislative authority must declare the policy or purpose of the law and set up standards or guides to indicate the extent, and prescribe the limits, of the discretion it is delegating. Id.
There are areas of necessary legislative undertakings, however, where it may not be feasible to supply precise standards without frustrating the purposes of the particular legislation. In such situations the presence of adequate procedural safeguards to protect against an abuse of discretion by those to whom the power is delegated compensates substantially for the want of precise guidelines and may be properly considered in resolving the constitutionality of the delegation of power. Finks v. Maine State Highway Commission, Me., 328 A.2d 791, 796 (1974).
The statutes here challenged withstand the constitutional attack.
As for standards, 12 M.R.S.A. §§ 4251-4252 are patently conservation measures. The Legislature has defined conservation for the purposes of this chapter:
" 'Conservation' means providing for the development and wise utilization of Maine's marine resources or protecting the ultimate supply for present and future generations or preventing waste or for implementing sound management programs." 12 M.R.S.A. § 3401(5-A).
Therein lies a standard to limit the latitude of those who draft municipal ordinances and that official who must approve them before adoption.
As for safeguards, there can be no municipal ordinance for regulation and licensing in this area unless the municipality has first funded a shellfish conservation program approved by the Commissioner of Marine Resources. 12 M.R.S.A. § 4252. Next, the proposed ordinance must have the approval of the Commissioner prior to enactment. Finally, the municipality's legislative body must vote to enact the ordinance. Id. This bifurcation of authority between state and local levels of government is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Broom
...abuse of discretion by those to whom the power is delegated compensates substantially for the want of precise guidelines..." State v. Boynton, 379 A.2d 994 (Me.1977).9 Under La.R.S. 40:1471.18, the trial judge can impose a penalty ranging from a fine between two hundred fifty dollars and on......
-
State v. Dube
...U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446 (1935); State v. Boynton, Me., 379 A.2d 994 (1977). The Commission's rule-making authority for administering chapters 93 and 95 of title 35 is conferred by section 1558, the r......
-
Secure Environments, Inc. v. Town of Norridgewock
...be properly considered in resolving the constitutionality of the delegation of power." Lewis, 433 A.2d at 749, (quoting State v. Boynton, 379 A.2d 994, 995 (Me.1977)). See also Northeast Occupational Exchange, Inc. v. State, 540 A.2d 1115, 1117 (Me.1988). Surely the provision of a public he......
-
Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...procedural safeguards may be properly considered in resolving the constitutionality of the delegation of power."); State v. Boynton , 379 A.2d 994, 995 (Me. 1977) ("[T]he presence of adequate procedural safeguards to protect against an abuse of discretion by those to whom the power is deleg......