Opinion ID: 874153
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bail Agents' Cross Appeal.

Text: 1. Criminal history checks. Bail Agents challenge two rulings by the district court. First, they allege that the district court erred in ruling that ADJ could require bail agents to submit criminal history checks under certain circumstances. The court held that a criminal history check could be required when a bail agent applies to be on the approved list after the first year of being licensed by the Department of Insurance and when seeking to have that license renewed. The district court did not justify that holding on the ground that such a requirement was procedural. Rather, it upheld it because the Department did not require annual criminal history checks after licensing a bail agent, but instead relied upon the statutory requirement that a producer, which includes a bail agent, report any criminal prosecution of the producer to the Department director within thirty days of the initial pretrial hearing date. Idaho Code § 41-1021(2). We agree that such requirement is not procedural. ADJ does not have the authority to license bail agents or to determine which bail agents should be licensed or permitted to write bail bonds. Section 12 of the Guidelines exceeds the authority of ADJ in its entirety. Therefore, we reverse that part of paragraph 5 of the judgment that provides: The Bail Bond Guidelines may require a bail agent to submit the results of a criminal history records finger print check with that agent's initial application for placement on the authorized list if the bail agent has held a producer license issued by the DOI [Department of Insurance] for more than one year. The Bail Bond Guidelines may also require a bail agent to submit the results of such a criminal history check with the bail agent's renewal application. 2. Due process. Second, Bail Agents contend that they were denied due process of law. The Guidelines require that each bail bond business designate a supervising agent, [2] and that other bail agents working for that business designate a supervising agent in order to be added to the list of approved bail agents. The supervising agent must also be on the list. Mr. Garske was the supervising agent for the thirty-eight people working as Aladdin bail agents, and he was on the list. When his license was renewed by the Department of Insurance, the Guidelines required him to have a criminal history records fingerprint check completed by the Idaho State Police Bureau of Criminal Identification and they required that the results be mailed from the Bureau of Criminal Identification directly to the Trial Court Administrator's Office. The Guidelines also provided, Criminal history checks received from any other address will not be accepted. [3] On January 3, 2006, Mr. Garske received a notice from the TCA notifying him that his license had expired and that he had not submitted the required documents to remain on the approved list, including the criminal history check. The notice gave him until noon on January 13, 2006, to submit the required documents or his name, and the names of bail agents for whom he was the supervising agent, would be removed from the approved list. He commenced the process to receive the criminal history check, and on January 5, 2006, he submitted the documents he could obtain and a receipt from the Idaho State Police showing that he had paid for the criminal history check. The State Police sent the criminal history result to the TCA on January 9, 2006, by statehouse mail, but the TCA had not received those results by the noon deadline on January 13, 2006. The TCA therefore removed Mr. Garske from the approved list and, as required by the Guidelines, the names of the thirty-eight agents for whom he was the supervising agent. In their argument, Bail Agents seem to raise two due process violations. First, they contend that they were entitled to notice and a hearing regarding the sufficiency of Mr. Garske's attempt to rectify his violation of the Guidelines before his name could be removed for failing to comply. The removal of Mr. Garske from the authorized list is entitled to the protection of procedural due process. Removal from the list would prohibit Mr. Garske from writing bail bonds in four counties. See Kuna Boxing Club, Inc. v. Idaho Lottery Comm'n, 149 Idaho 94, 101, 233 P.3d 25, 32 (2009) (suspension of an issued license may not occur without due process). Procedural due process protects the minimum guarantees of notice and a hearing where deprivation of a property interest may occur. The opportunity to be heard must occur at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Boise Tower Assocs., LLC v. Hogland, 147 Idaho 774, 780, 215 P.3d 494, 500 (2009) (citations omitted). Before taking any action, the TCA gave Mr. Garske notice and an opportunity for a hearing regarding his failure to submit the necessary documents to be retained on the list. Rather than request a hearing, Mr. Garske attempted to comply with the Guidelines during the ten days he was given. He contends that he should have been given another opportunity for a hearing regarding the sufficiency of his attempt. He offers no authority to support this argument. After receiving the notice, Mr. Garske contacted the State Police and paid the fee for the background check. Once he had done so, he had to wait for the background check to be completed, the results sent to the TCA, and the TCA to receive those results. Mr. Garske's contention was that he was entitled to a hearing before the TCA could take any action if the results were not received timely. The obvious purpose would be to delay proceedings in the hope that the results would arrive at the TCA's office before he was removed from the list. If a hearing were held and the determination was that the results had not yet arrived, then he could make another attempt (i.e., by calling the State Police to see whether they had been sent), and then be entitled to another hearing as to the sufficiency of that attempt to comply. This could go on ad infinitum. Due process does not require notice and an opportunity for a hearing regarding the sufficiency of his attempt to rectify the deficiency addressed in the first notice. The Bail Agents also contend that the pre-hearing removal of Mr. Garske and 38 other agents in 2006 did not comply with the requirements of procedural due process. ADJ contends that they were not entitled to the protection of due process because they had no property interest in remaining on the approved list in the Fourth Judicial District. These agents were all licensed by the State of Idaho, which granted them the right to sell bail bond contracts throughout the state. The right to pursue an occupation is a property interest that is protected by due process. Schware v. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, 801-02 (1957); H & V Engineering, Inc. v. Idaho State Bd. of Prof. Engineers, 113 Idaho 646, 649, 747 P.2d 55, 58 (1987). Removing these agents from the approved list in the Fourth Judicial District prevented them from practicing their chosen occupation in four of Idaho's counties, including its most populous county. ADJ argues that they could still sell bail bond contracts in the other six judicial districts, but such argument is unpersuasive. They were entitled to practice their occupation in those four counties and prohibiting them from doing so significantly impinged upon their right to practice their chosen occupation. Under ADJ's argument, the administrative district judges in all judicial districts could ban these agents from writing bail bonds in their respective districts without notice and an opportunity for a hearing, thereby banning them from writing bail bonds anywhere in the state, and they would not be entitled to procedural due process because each administrative district judge only banned them from writing bonds in his or her judicial district. With respect to these 38 agents, the Bail Agents are correct that they were denied procedural due process. The TCA removed them from the approved list without giving them any notice or opportunity for a hearing. They were removed for Mr. Garske's failure to comply with the Guidelines. Assuming that they could be removed for his failure to comply, they were still entitled to due process.