Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

Seizing the Moment: Investigations and Pre-Hearing Deprivations

By Eric L. Lipman

In an opinion issued on Tuesday, a panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed a very interesting question: Does the fact that the Department of Natural Resources conducted a six-month investigation into the destruction of 19,838 pounds of buffalo fish argue for, or against, a prehearing revocation of the game and fish licenses held by the person that the Department accused of destroying the fish?

The panel held, in part, that because the Licensee, Dean Mertins, had the use of his game and fish licenses while the DNR investigation into the destruction of the fish was underway, a later pre-hearing seizure of Mertins' licenses by state conservation officers comported with due process. As Judge Minge summarized for the panel: ?[C]onservation officers are directed to seize all licenses held by a person when the restitution value is $5,000 or more. The immediate and mandatory nature of the license seizure contemplated by the statute heightens the risk of erroneous deprivation. But we also note that Officer Heyn conducted a thorough examination of the fish-kill, that approximately six months elapsed before he served Mertins with a seizure notice, and that Mertins had the use of his license throughout the DNR?s investigation.?

The panel?s complete analysis of the license seizure statute, and the three-factor test set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on September 07, 2008 (boomark / email).