The issue is about the reasonableness of the law not the operation of the law.
This definition of Amendments IV and V demeans the purpose of these Amendments to secure persons from unreasonable and unnecessary laws that authorize the use of state police power that depives persons of their liberty and property.
Maine Constitution Art. IV, pt 3, § 1 legislative power.
“The validity of regulatory “measures are challenged on the ground that they transgress the Constitution, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, in the light of the facts in the case, to determine whether the regulation is reasonable and valid or essentially unreasonable, arbitrary and void.” Norfolk & W.R. Co. v Public Service Commission of West Virginia 265 U.S. 70, 74 (1924).
“Legislative authority to abridge [plaintiff’s liberty and] property rights … can be justified only by exceptional circumstances and, even then, by reasonable regulation only, and that legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are subject to judicial review.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 543; 54 S.Ct. 505, (1934).
It is the governmental power of self-protection and permits reasonable regulation of rights and property in particulars essential to the preservation of the community from injury. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. Highway Comm'n, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935).
“Criminal statutes [must] be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny … if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967).
Such a law, even though enacted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a heavy burden of justification, …..and will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196, (1964).
….the lawgiver has the right to prescribe the mode and manner of using it, so far as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the right, to the injury or annoyance of others, or of the public. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 147 (1876).
In his Commentaries, after speaking of the protection afforded by the Constitution to private property, Chancellor Kent says: But though property be thus protected, it is still to be understood that the lawgiver has the right to prescribe the mode and manner of using it, so far as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the right, to the injury or annoyance of others, or of the public.