Opinion ID: 766867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liberty Interest--Alleged Adjudication of Criminal Conduct

Text: 52 Waste Management's fifth claim for relief purports to state a cause of action under Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (1969). The complaint alleges that Miller, in conducting the investigation requested by the Board and reporting his findings to the Board, exercised a function closely akin to making an official and public adjudication of criminal culpability. The report allegedly publicly branded and continues to brand the plaintiffs as connected to organized crime. Waste Management argues that due process entitled them to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to public dissemination of Miller's Final Report. 53 Jenkins involved a challenge to the constitutionality of aLouisiana statute that created a commission of inquiry to investigate possible violations of criminal laws arising out of labor management relations. Id. at 413-14. The plaintiff brought suit under S 1983, alleging that the commission was an executive trial agency `aimed at conducting public trials concerning criminal law violations' and that its function was publicly to condemn. Id. at 419. The Supreme Court agreed and held that the commission clearly exercised an accusatory function, rather than a purely investigatory function, in that it was meant to supplement and assist the efforts and activities of the several district attorneys, grand juries and other law enforcement officials and agencies . . . . Id. at 414-15. As such, the commission's procedures had to satisfy the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 428. 54 A similar argument was made in Paul v. Davis, which the Court rejected holding that Jenkins was inapplicable. The Court stated: 55 Indeed, the actions taken by [the defendants] in this case fall far short of the more formalized proceedings of the Commission on Civil Rights established by Congress in 1957, the procedures of which were upheld against constitutional challenge by this Court in Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960). There the Court described the functions of the Commission in this language: 56 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., at 441 (emphasis supplied). 57 Addressing itself to the question of whether the Commission's `proceedings might irreparably harm those being investigated by subjecting them to public opprobrium and scorn, the distinct likelihood of losing their jobs, and the possibility of criminal prosecutions,' the Court said that even if such collateral consequences were to flow from the Commission's investigations, they would not be the result of any affirmative determinations made by the Commission, and they would not affect the legitimacy of the Commission's investigative function. Id., at 443. 58 Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 706 n.4. 59 Like Paul v. Davis, the present case differs markedly from Jenkins. Miller exercised an investigative function, not an accusatory function, for the County of San Diego. Miller's investigatory role is a far cry from the accusatory commission of inquiry at issue in Jenkins. In this case, the Board requested Miller's investigation to further its legislative determination regarding Waste Management's then-pending application for a major use permit. In its memorandum to Miller, the Board requested that Waste Management's operating record be closely examined, and impartially investigated to see how their record compares with other nationwide firms in the waste industry. Miller's investigation was for the purpose of assisting the Board so that further legislative action could be taken and the Board could approve or deny Waste Management, Inc.'s application. The purpose, like that in Hannah v. Larche, was to find facts which may subsequently be used as a basis for legislative or executive action. See Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. at 441. The fifth claim for relief was properly dismissed. IV.