Well, if the governor has stipulated that the health risk requires that the following rules of conduct (and, thus, suspension of certain liberties) be enforced, it is incumbent upon the governor/state to prove that the measures to be enforced are necessary. And, I would say that should cases arise where governors cast people into prison and then it is found that the proof they offer for suspension of rights is weak/insufficient, they should be open to lawsuits/fines/imprisonments (that’s how dear our rights are/that’s how weighty an issue it should be to thinking of suspending them).
It can’t be that one’s constitutional rights can be superseded so willy-nilly. The ultimate authority is the Constitution, something all elected officials swear to uphold. I know that state’s have their constitutions, but these do not trump the US Constitution.
There is an interesting evidentiary standard involved. Pretty much all law is outcome oriented. If the judges want to shut this woman down, they do. If a different judge wants a different outcome, he just says the first judge got the law wrong.
"A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts."
I wonder if this lady had a lawyer or self represented. The court often, even if not correct, considers only the arguments presented. The argument that she is feeding children and not selfish doesn’t address the legal aspects of the case. So prosecution wins. I think a lawyer might have avoided the arrest and pushed the case down the road. Most cases don’t get resolved on first hearing. Without an attorney, though, she gets railroaded.