ordinance prohibiting keeping more than three dogs per residential unit); People v. Yeo, 103 Mich.App. 418, 302 N.W.2d 883, 885-86 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1134, 102 S.Ct. 2961, 73 L.Ed.2d 1351 (1982) (same); Downing v. Cook, 69 Ohio St.2d 149, 431 N.E.2d 995, 997 (1982) (upholding ordinance prohibiting keeping more than three adult dogs on comparatively small residential lots); Village of Carpentersville v. Fiala, 98 Ill.App.3d 1005, 54 Ill.Dec. 521, 522, 425 N.E.2d 33, 34 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 990, 102 S.Ct. 2271, 73 L.Ed.2d 1285 (1982) (upholding ordinance limiting the number of dogs in a single-family residence to two and the number of dogs in a single-family unit in a multiple housing building to one); State v. Mueller, 220 Wis. 435, 265 N.W. 103, 105-06 (1936) (<HOLDING>). Appellants cite Commonwealth v. Creighton,
holding that the exercise of police power was valid where an owner was prohibited from operating a liveiy stable business that was not a nuisance per se holding that limiting to two the number of dogs kept per residential unit was not an unreasonable exercise of police power holding that florida statute did not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the states police power and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges recognizing that notion exercise of any discretion renders search unreasonable per se has been rejected holding that strip search incident to arrest was not per se unreasonable but holding that search was performed in an unreasonable manner when conducted in view of the public