Commonwealth v. Clemmey

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
447 Mass. 121 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The legislature may constitutionally delegate authority to an executive agency to define the terms of an exemption to a criminal statute, provided it sets fundamental policy, provides adequate direction, and includes safeguards against abuse of discretion. Furthermore, a prosecutor is not required to present evidence of a defendant's claimed reliance on a statutory exemption to a grand jury if other evidence indicates the exemption is inapplicable.

Facts:

In September 2000, the Quirk Trust LLC, managed by Karl D. Clemmey, purchased property that contained a significant amount of wetlands.
The property was once used for farming, but it had not been actively used for that purpose for at least ten years prior to its purchase by the trust.
In November 2001, Clemmey obtained a business certificate from the town of Mansfield to operate a horse farm on the property.
Clemmey informed the administrator of the local conservation commission of his long-term plan to establish a horse farm.
Between October 2001 and March 2002, Clemmey hired companies to clear-cut trees and fill approximately 5.8 acres of wetlands on the property.
Clemmey did not file a written notice of his intention to alter the wetlands or receive an 'order of conditions' from the conservation commission before commencing the work.
After the work was discovered by officials, Clemmey told a wetlands consultant he hired that he believed his actions were permissible under the agricultural exemption to the Wetlands Protection Act.

Procedural Posture:

A grand jury in Bristol County returned indictments against Quirk Trust LLC and Karl D. Clemmey for violations of the Wetlands Protection Act.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictments in the Superior Court, arguing that the grand jury proceedings were impaired and that the Legislature had unconstitutionally delegated its authority.
The Superior Court judge dismissed the indictments, finding the prosecutor's failure to inform the grand jury of the agricultural exemption and Clemmey's reliance on it impaired the proceedings.
The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court to its own docket on its own motion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Legislature's delegation of authority to the Department of Environmental Protection to define the terms of an agricultural exemption to the criminal provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights?

Opinions:

Majority - Cordy, J.

No, the Legislature's delegation of authority to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to define the terms of the agricultural exemption does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The court applied a three-factor test, concluding that: (1) the Legislature made the fundamental policy decision to balance environmental protection with agricultural viability and merely delegated the implementation details to the DEP; (2) the Act provided adequate direction to the agency, using phrases like 'land in agricultural use' and referencing 'routine and long standing farm operations' to guide the rulemaking; and (3) the Act contained sufficient safeguards against abuse of discretion, including the creation of a farmland advisory board, requiring approval from the Commissioner of Food and Agriculture, and the availability of judicial review. Therefore, the delegation was a proper exercise of legislative power to use agency expertise to work out the details of its established policy.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the boundaries of the nondelegation doctrine in Massachusetts, especially concerning criminal statutes. It affirms that the Legislature can leverage the technical expertise of administrative agencies to define specific terms that affect criminal liability, so long as the delegation is properly constrained. The decision solidifies the three-part 'Chelmsford' test as the framework for such analysis, emphasizing that legislative control over fundamental policy is the key, not control over every implementation detail. This precedent provides agencies with significant, but not unlimited, authority to shape the practical application of complex statutes that carry criminal penalties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Clemmey (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"