State v. Eaton

• Decision Date: 05 July 1990
• Citation: 577 A.2d 1162
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Eugene EATON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1162

577 A.2d 1162

STATE of Maine v. Eugene EATON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued June 1, 1990.

Decided July 5, 1990.

James E. Tierney, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Harnett (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.

William N. Ferm (orally), Ferm, McSweeney & Collier, Ellsworth, for defendant.

Before ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant Eugene Eaton appeals three convictions for dragging in the Frenchboro cable area, 12 M.R.S.A. § 6954-A (Supp.1989), following a nonjury trial in Superior Court (Hancock County, Alexander, J.). On appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute, the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the convictions.

Defendant was convicted of taking scallops or operating a motorcraft while towing a drag in the Frenchboro cable area ¹ on three separate occasions: December 12, 1986, December 22, 1986 and January 14, 1987. ² The State's case was based largely on the testimony of Marine Patrol Officers Dwinal Smith and Jonathan Cornish. At the suppression hearing, Officer Smith testified that near midday on December 12 he responded to a complaint of scalloping in the Frenchboro cable area. Using a visual sighting, he located defendant's boat and determined that it was in the prohibited cable area. Officer Smith confirmed his visual sighting by use of a LORAN system in combination with a compass and the variable range finder on his boat's radar system. ³ Using binoculars to monitor defendant's activity, Officer Smith noted that defendant's boat was moving "in a circular pattern ... indicative of scalloping" and further observed defendant pull scallop drags up onto his boat. Officers Smith and Cornish then boarded defendant's boat and observed scallops on board.

Officer Cornish testified about the December 22 incident and a subsequent conversation he had with defendant on December 23. Around 5:00 a.m. on the morning of December 22, Officer Cornish and two fellow officers, using a spotlight, observed defendant's boat with the drag line in the water inside the Frenchboro cable area. Because the officers pursued other boats engaged in illegal dragging, however, they did not stop defendant at that time. On December 23, Officer Cornish went to defendant's residence in uniform to issue defendant a summons. Defendant invited him in. Before issuing the summons, Officer Cornish spoke with defendant about the incident. Defendant admitted he was in the prohibited area but claimed his line was down as an anchor and that he was waiting for daylight to drag. Despite these statements, Officer Cornish issued the summons. The entire visit lasted "approximately twenty minutes."

Officer Smith testified that near midmorning on January 14 he positioned himself on shore roughly 100 yards west of the easternmost point of Red Point. From this vantage point, he could see 98% of the prohibited area. Officer Smith observed defendant's boat heading in a southeasterly direction with its drag line in the water, in excess of one-half mile inside the prohibited area. Defendant's boat then turned back in a northerly direction until it was roughly on the perimeter of the prohibited area, then pulled up its drags. Based on these observations, Officer Smith alerted other patrol boats by telephone and the Coast Guard stopped defendant's boat. When an hour later Officer Smith boarded defendant's boat, he observed scallops shucked and unshucked on board.

Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that section 6954-A is unconstitutional. The motion justice denied defendant's motion to dismiss, but held that because the statute was silent respecting the water level at which the boundaries of the prohibited area are to be determined, defendant was entitled to the construction that prohibits dragging in the smallest area. Defendant next moved to suppress: 1) evidence of the two stops on the ground that there was no articulable suspicion; and 2) defendant's December 23 statements on the ground that they were not voluntary. The motion justice denied defendant's motion. At trial, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the State's case. The trial justice denied defendant's motion. Defendant now appeals the above rulings.

I.

Defendant's motion to dismiss was based on four theories: 1) section 6954-A is invalid emergency legislation; 2) section 6954-A is unconstitutionally vague; 3) section 6954-A is an unconstitutional exercise of the State's police power; and 4) section 6954-A is violative of equal protection. With respect to section 6954-A's status as emergency legislation, the motion justice held that the statute's preamble contained facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Maine Constitution, see Maine Const. art. IV, pt. 3 § 16. With respect to defendant's second argument, the motion justice held that the fact that the statute is silent regarding the water level at which the boundaries are to be determined does not render the statute unconstitutional. Regarding defendant's third argument, the motion justice held that the fact that the prohibited area is larger than the area in which the cable lay does not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the State's police power because a rational relationship exists between the prohibited area and the protection of the cable. Finally, the motion justice ruled that section 6954-A does not violate equal protection because the statute's distinction between fishermen who drag for their catch and those who do not is rational.

Section 6954-A was enacted as emergency legislation and approved by the Governor on December 5, 1986. The emergency preamble provides in relevant part as follows:

Whereas, current statutes do not provide for immediate and effective law enforcement; and

Whereas, the current description of the prohibited area is incorrect; ⁴ and

Whereas, the clear intent of the law is being violated by repeated dragging in cable areas; and

Whereas, the health and safety of island residents is placed in jeopardy by the repeated dragging in cable areas in the face of the unenforceability of the statutes; and

Whereas, in the judgment of the Legislature, these facts create an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution of Maine and require the following legislation as immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety....

L.D. 3, Preamble (113th Legis.1986).

While the general rule is that legislative acts become law 90 days after the recess of the Legislature in which they were passed, see Maine Const. art. IV, pt. 3 § 16, the Maine Constitution provides that emergency measures necessary for the preservation of public peace, health and safety become effective as soon as they are approved by the Governor. Id. In Maine Milk Comm'n. v. Cumberland Farms, 160 Me. 366, 205 A.2d 146 (1964), appeal dismissed 380 U.S. 521, 85 S.Ct. 1333, 14 L.Ed.2d 266 (1965), we explained that "[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary this Court will take the statements in the preamble of legislative acts to be true, and will not substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature." Id. 160 Me. at 380, 205 A.2d at 153. Accordingly, while the preamble does not explicitly provide that the danger to be avoided is the loss of electricity to island residents in the event the cable is broken, such a legislative judgment is implicit and is therefore entitled to deference.

With respect to defendant's void for vagueness argument, we have held that " '[l]egislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty, if susceptible of any reasonable construction that will support it.' " State v. S.S. Kresge, Inc., 364 A.2d 868, 872 (Me.1976), quoting State v. Davenport, 326 A.2d 1, 6 (Me.1974). See also Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co., Inc. v. Lewiston-Auburn S.P.A., 320 A.2d 247, 253-54 (Me.1974). Like other marine regulatory legislation, section 6954-A uses prominent landmarks to define the area closed to the prohibited activity. See, e.g., 12 M.R.S.A. §§ 6254, 6439, 6439-A, 6571, 6723, 6724 & 6955 (1981 & Supp.1989). While defendant is correct in pointing out that the statute does not indicate whether the measurements are to be taken at the high or low water marks, that fact alone does not make section 6954-A unconstitutionally vague. The motion justice demonstrated that section 6954-A was susceptible of a reasonable construction by giving it one.

In Danish Health Club v. Town of Kittery, 562 A.2d 663 (Me.1989), we articulated the requirements of due process in the exercise of the State's police power as follows:

1. The object of the exercise must be to provide for the public welfare.

2. The legislative means employed must be appropriate to the achievement of the ends sought.

3. The manner of exercising the power must not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.

Id. at 665 (emphasis in original). In order to successfully challenge the constitutionality of a statute on due process grounds, a party "must establish the complete absence of any state of facts that would support the need for its enactment." Id., citing Tisei v. Town of Ogunquit, 491 A.2d 564, 569 (Me.1985). The emergency preamble provides that the purpose of section 6954-A is to protect the health and safety of island residents. While defendant is correct in pointing out that the prohibited area is larger than the length and width of the cable, that fact alone does not demonstrate that section 6954-A is arbitrary and capricious. Officer Smith testified at the hearing that the position of the cable is thought to fluctuate due to tides and boats dragging into it. Moreover, consideration of the topography indicates that the landmarks selected by the Legislature to define the prohibited area are appropriate given the location of the cable vis-a-vis the surrounding land bodies.

Defen...