Opinion ID: 2207217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of the Citizens' Aide Investigation.

Text: Under chapter 17A, an agency's action may be characterized as rule-making, contested case or other agency action. Polk County v. Iowa State Appeal Bd., 330 N.W.2d 267, 276 (Iowa 1983). Citizens' Aide's investigation is clearly not rule-making, and neither party claims it is. Thus, the action could only be construed to be either a contested case or other agency action. Under chapter 17A, a contested case is a proceeding including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by Constitution or statute to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. Iowa Code § 17A.2(2). See generally Bonfield, The Definition of Formal Agency Adjudication Under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, 63 Iowa L.Rev. 285, 291 (1977) [hereinafter Bonfield, Formal Agency Adjudication. ] We believe the investigation by Citizens' Aide fails the test for a contested case under section 17A.2(2) in one key respect: it did not determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of Sheriff Rolfes. To be a contested case, the agency action must be one which determines the rights of specific individuals based on their own particular facts and circumstances. Id. at 291-92. Citizens' Aide's functions include, among others: investigation of administrative agency action, determination of the scope and manner of its investigations, the request and receipt of information and assistance from an agency, the entry upon and investigation of premises, the issuance of subpoenas to compel testimony and production of documents, and the power to petition a district court for an order directing obedience to the subpoena. Iowa Code § 601G.9. Citizens' Aide's investigations do not involve an adjudication of legal rights, duties or privileges, but only the discovery of facts in relation to a particular investigation. When the Citizens' Aide investigation is complete, the information gathered is referred to appropriate authorities for further action, if any, to remedy any wrongs discovered. In an analogous case, the Supreme Court has held that purely investigative and fact-finding activity of an agency is not an adjudication of a party's legal rights. Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 440-41, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1513-14, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307, 1320-21 (1960). The Court stated: [w]e think it is necessary at the outset to ascertain both the nature and function of this Commission. Section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 specifies the duties to be performed by the Commission. Those duties consist of (1) investigating written, sworn allegations that anyone has been discriminatorily deprived of his right to vote; (2) studying and collecting information concerning legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution; and (3) reporting to the President and Congress on its activities, findings, and recommendations. As i[s] apparent from this brief sketch of the statutory duties imposed upon the commission, its function is purely investigative and fact-finding. It does not adjudicate. It does not hold trials or determine anyone's civil or criminal liability. It does not issue orders. Nor does it indict, punish, or impose any legal sanctions. It does not make determinations depriving anyone of his life, liberty, or property. In short, the Commission does not and cannot take any affirmative action which will affect an individual's legal rights. The only purpose of its existence is to find facts which may subsequently be used as the basis for legislative or executive action. Id. (emphasis added). Also, a contested case is defined as a proceeding required by constitution or statute to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. Iowa Code § 17A.2(2). An evidentiary hearing is  `an oral proceeding whose purpose is to determine disputed facts of particular applicability known as adjudicative factsthe who, what, when, where, and why of particular individuals in specified circumstances.'  Polk County, 330 N.W.2d at 277 (quoting Bonfield, Formal Agency Adjudication, at 288). Generally, an investigation has been distinguished from a hearing. An investigation is said to be a nonjudicial function of an administrative agency for a general, one-sided presentation of issues without issues drawn. A hearing is appropriate to quasi-judicial proceedings which include parties, issues of law and fact, and at which parties are entitled to be present, participate, and obtain records of proceedings. 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 76 (1983). The process of investigation should not be characterized as an evidentiary hearing. For these reasons, we conclude that Citizens' Aide investigations are not contested case actions under chapter 17A, but rather are other agency actions. The importance of this distinction lies in the procedural requirements which attach. In Allegre v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 349 N.W.2d 112, 116 (Iowa 1984), we stated that [t]he practical result of this characterization is that the contested case procedural requirements of sections 17A.10-.17 and .19 are not applicable. Therefore, the Board is subject only to those procedural ... requirements of its enabling legislation ... and general constitutional and statutory requirements that agencies act reasonably. (Citation omitted.) In Hannah, the Supreme Court held that no procedural due process rights attach to actions of an agency involved in a purely investigative and fact-finding mode. It stated: Due Process is an elusive concept. Its exact boundaries are undefinable, and its content varies according to specific factual contexts. Thus, when governmental agencies adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect the legal rights of individuals, it is imperative that those agencies use the procedures which have traditionally been associated with the judicial process. On the other hand, when governmental action does not partake of an adjudication, as for example, when a general fact-finding investigation is being conducted, it is not necessary that a full panoply of judicial procedures be used. Hannah, 363 U.S. at 442, 80 S.Ct. at 1514, 4 L.Ed.2d at 1321. Further, the Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. O'Brien, 467 U.S. 735, 742, 104 S.Ct. 2720, 2725, 81 L.Ed.2d 615, 621-22 (1984), relying on Hannah, held that the due process clause of the fifth amendment is not violated when a federal administrative agency, without notifying a person under investigation, uses its subpoena power to gather evidence adverse to him. It is apparent that a hearing prior to the investigation is not required by the Constitution.