Opinion ID: 2601946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Resolving Constitutional Issues With Reference to the Federal Constitution and the Utah Constitution

Text: ¶ 24 Both the federal Constitution and the Utah Constitution contain provisions safeguarding an individual's right to due process of law. The Utah Constitution provides that [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. [20] The Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution also provides that [n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. [21] While the text of the two provisions is identical, we do not presume that federal court interpretations of federal Constitutional provisions control the meaning of identical provisions in the Utah Constitution. [22] In fact, we have not hesitated to interpret the provisions of the Utah Constitution to provide more expansive protections than similar federal provisions where appropriate. [23] ¶ 25 The order in which we address textually similar constitutional provisionsstate before federal or vice versadepends upon several factors and requires a case-by-case resolution. Often the parties will frame their arguments entirely in terms of either the Utah Constitution or the federal Constitution. [24] In some instances, resolving the case using the Utah Constitution renders the clearest result, and so we will resolve the case with reference only to the Utah Constitution. [25] ¶ 26 Nevertheless, the protections in the federal Constitution provide a constitutional floor, which, if Utah's Constitution or laws provide a lesser level of protection, renders interpretation of Utah's Constitution unnecessary. [26] In other words, if the challenged state action violates the federal Constitution, we need not reach the question of whether the Utah Constitution provides additional protection; we may instead resolve the case with reference only to the federal Constitution. ¶ 27 Such is the case here. Briggs argues that we should examine the registration statute using the federal model, but that we should hold that the Utah Constitution provides a higher level of protection for Utah's citizens. Under the federal procedural due process analysis, he asserts, the government must provide a constitutionally adequate process before it deprives him of an interest in life, liberty, or property. [27] He argues that the registration statute deprives him of his liberty interest in his reputation. Because we hold that under federal procedural due process Briggs is entitled to a hearing prior to the DOC's publishing any information related to his current dangerousness, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the Utah Constitution also requires the DOC to provide a hearing before publishing information related to his current dangerousness. [28]