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 motoreraft 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 *1164 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 mid-morning 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 *1165 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,
With respect to defendant’s void for vagueness argument, we have held that
“
‘[legislation 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.,
In
Danish Health Club v. Town of Kittery,
1. The object of the exercise must be to provide for the public welfare.
*1166 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,
Defendant’s equal protection argument is likewise lacking in merit. Defendant argues that by permitting lobstering and other forms of fishing not involving the use of a drag or trawl, the Legislature invidiously discriminated against scallop-ers. A party alleging that a legislative classification violates equal protection “must show ‘by clear and irrefutable evidence its arbitrariness and irrationally discriminatory nature.’ ”
Jackson v. State,
II.
In denying defendant’s motion to suppress the December 12 and January 14 stops, the motion justice made the following findings on the record:
... I’m satisfied that based on the observations of the line and the angle that the line was in the water, the elliptical nature of the progress of the vessel, the actual eyeballing of the defendant and the scallops on the boat prior to the time that [defendant’s boat] was boarded, the fact that the officer from a relatively short distance away was able to actually see the scallops brought up on [defendant’s boat] and identify the fact that they were scallops ... I’m satisfied that that evidence was sufficient to raise the evidence to a level which articulable suspicion has been proven for purposes of making a stop.
On appeal, defendant argues that the motion justice’s finding that there was an articulable suspicion for both stops was erroneous.
See State v. Garland,
Defendant’s argument is without merit. “The weight of the evidence and the determination of witness credibility are factors within the exclusive province of the trier of fact.”
State v. Reardon,
Defendant also challenges the motion justice’s denial of his motion to suppress the statements to Officer Cornish on December 23. In reaching his decision, the motion justice explained that while it may have been better practice for Officer Cornish to have served defendant at the outset, his failure to do so did not render defendant’s statements involuntary. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the motion justice’s ruling was correct. In
State v. Mikulewicz,
III.
In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, the motion justice ruled that defendant was entitled to the construction of section 6954-A that resulted in the smallest prohibited area; thus, the boundaries were to be determined at low tide. On appeal, defendant argues that in each instance the State failed to establish that defendant was in the prohibited area as determined at low tide and therefore his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted.
The standard for determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction “is whether, based on that evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any trier of fact rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged.”
State v. Barry,
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
All concurring.
Notes
. Section 6954-A reads in relevant part as follows:
1. Violation. It is unlawful to take scallops by any means or to operate any watercraft when towing a drag or trawl within the following area: Starting at the easternmost point on Red Point, Swan’s Island; thence in an easterly direction to the southernmost point of the western Sister’s Island; thence in a southeasterly direction to the southernmost point of Crow Island; thence in a southerly direction to the northernmost point of Harbor Island, Frenchboro, Long Island; thence southerly to the state ferry terminal located on the eastern side of Lunt’s Harbor, French-boro, Long Island, and then starting at the westernmost point of Gooseberry Point on Frenchboro, Long Island; westerly to the northeast point of John’s Island; thence northwest to the easternmost point of the largest of the Baker Islands; thence northwesterly to the northeastern point of Harbor Island, Swan’s Island; thence northerly to Quarry Wharf, Minturn, Swan’s Island.
12 M.R.S.A. § 6954-A (Supp.1989).
. Each incident was originally the subject of a separate complaint. The cases were consolidated for hearing on defendant’s pre-trial motions and for trial.
. LORAN stands for “Long Range Aid to Navigation.” The device enables a boat equipped with a LORAN receiver to determine its exact location through the use of radio signals sent from fixed points on the mainland. Using LORAN to determine the position of his patrol boat, Officer Smith then used his radar's variable range finder, along with a compass, to determine the precise location of defendant’s boat.
. The previous version of the statute incorrectly designated "the westernmost point on Red Point” as a marking. Red Point is on the eastern side of Swan’s Island.