State v. McCurdy
10 A.3d 686
| Me. | 2010Background
- McCurdy was found liable for a Cobscook Bay scallop meat-size violation under 13 188 C.M.R. § 011-11.19(1)(D) as applied by a DMR sampling method.
- The regulation at issue (2009) implemented 12 M.R.S. § 6728(1) and sought conservation by limiting shucked scallop meat measures, with no explicit sampling method.
- At dock, an officer measured the smallest meats from three buckets, yielding 40, 41, and 43 meats per pint, and McCurdy was cited.
- McCurdy argued the sampling method was vague because it did not specify random vs culled sampling or minimum meat size, undermining notice and conservation goals.
- The court vacated the judgment, holding the 2009 regulation, as applied, violated due process due to vagueness; the 2010 amendment added a specific smallest-meat sampling method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2009 Cobscook Bay meat-size regulation, as applied, unconstitutionally vague? | McCurdy contends the sampling method leaves fishermen guessing. | State argues the regulation is implementable and reasonable. | Yes; violation of due process; judgment vacated. |
| Does the 2010 amendment cure the vagueness for future seasons? | McCurdy argued the defect persisted under prior method. | State contends the amendment resolves the vagueness. | Regulation defect cured; opinion notes no view on policy implications; judgment vacated for 2009 issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown, 752 A.2d 183 (Me. 2000) (unmeasurable quality violates due process; improper delegation)
- City of Portland v. Jacobsky, 496 A.2d 646 (Me. 1985) (vagueness when terms are so vague common intelligence must guess)
- Waterville Hotel Corp. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 241 A.2d 50 (Me. 1968) (reasonable clarity required for regulatory compliance)
- Cope v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brunswick, 464 A.2d 223 (Me. 1983) (due process and clarity in regulatory approvals)
- Kelby v. Me. Real Estate Comm'n, 360 A.2d 528 (Me. 1976) (void for vagueness when standard lacks cognizable standards)
- State v. Haskell, 784 A.2d 4 (Me. 2001) (de novo review of regulation validity; deference to agency interpretation with limits)