Opinion ID: 1313347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: procedural protections due

Text: Having concluded that the Due Process Clause applies, the question is, What process is due? The majority correctly points out that under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-723 (Reissue 1995), an individual whose name is placed in the Registry may ask the DSS to amend or expunge the report from the Registry, and that if the DSS does not do so within 30 days, the individual is entitled to a fair hearing. However, this hearing is available only after the individual's name has already been included in the Registry. See §§ 28- 713.01 and 28-723. Shearer argues that she was entitled to notice and a fair hearing before her name was added to the Registry. Thus, the question is whether due process entitled Shearer to a predeprivation hearing, as opposed to a postdeprivation hearing. As a general rule, the Due Process Clause requires that individuals receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of their liberty interest. See, United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993); Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). However, [w]e tolerate some exceptions to the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but only in ` extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event .' United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 53, 114 S.Ct. 492, quoting Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). See, also, Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (noting that postdeprivation process may be sufficient when state must necessarily act quickly or it is impractical to provide predeprivation process). Whether such an exception applies requires an examination of the competing interests at stake, along with the promptness and adequacy of later proceedings. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, supra . In this regard, we consider (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the state's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Id.; In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405, 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).