Opinion ID: 2186268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Do sections 181.75 and 181.76 result in an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process of law ?

Text: Defendants claim they suffer a deprivation of property without due process because, without outlawing the profession entirely, sections 181.75 and 181.76 severely reduce the quantity of polygraph, or similar testing they will have the opportunity to conduct. Defendants properly point out that [a] right to conduct a business    is property within the due process clause of the constitution. Connor v. Township of Chanhassen, 249 Minn. 205, 216, 81 N.W.2d 789, 797 (1957). But the legislature is empowered to enact legislation for the purpose of public health or general welfare which is legitimately or reasonably related to that purpose. City of St. Paul v. Dalsin, 245 Minn. 325, 329, 71 N.W.2d 855, 858 (1955). It has been said that even a legitimate occupation may be restricted or prohibited in the public interest. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 632-33, 71 S.Ct. 920, 927, 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951). We have already determined above that the state's interest in the regulation of commercial speech imposed by sections 181.75 and 181.76 is substantial and that the statutes are suitably tailored to achieve this interest. The statutes clearly satisfy the requirement that the regulation be reasonably related to a state's purpose. The fact that a person may not be able to expand his or her business as greatly as he or she might prefer does not undercut the reasonableness of the regulation. Defendants' third and final certified question must therefore be answered in the negative: no unconstitutional deprivation of property is wrought by sections 181.75 and 181.76.
The regulations of commercial speech at issue here, sections 181.75 and 181.76, do not infringe the defendants' first amendment freedoms on account of overbreadth or vagueness, nor is there a deprivation of property without due process. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.