Opinion ID: 2071833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: due process and retroactive application

Text: Hauser's final assignments of error concern the district court's failure to find a procedural due process violation stemming from the Attorney General's participation in the hearing process and the retroactive application of a change in the law. Hauser claims that his due process rights were violated because the Attorney General acted as a hearing officer during the revocation proceedings. He argues that the Attorney General should have appointed a special assistant attorney general to represent Hauser and another special assistant to act as the hearing officer for the Council. He asserts that this approach would have allowed the Attorney General to fulfill his duty as a voting member of the Commission and preserve the impartiality of the revocation proceedings. Hauser also claims that the rule requiring certification for employment with the State Patrol was improperly applied retroactively to him. He contends that prior to July 1, 2000, § 81-1401 et seq. (Reissue 1999) did not require a law enforcement certificate as a necessary prerequisite to performing law enforcement duties or maintaining a job as a law enforcement officer. Hauser claims that under the prior legislation, a law enforcement officer could have his certificate revoked but still hold and exercise the powers of his existing law enforcement position. Pursuant to 2000 Neb. Laws, L.B. 994, § 2, which became effective July 13, 2000, [a] law enforcement officer shall possess a valid law enforcement officer certificate or diploma, as established by the council, in order to be vested with the authority of this section.... Hauser contends that the amendment was improperly applied because the complaint against him was first processed on September 8, 1999. He claims therefore that he has a constitutional right not to have his employment terminated by a statutory change which if applied retroactively would impair or interfere with his vested rights. The issues of due process and the alleged improper application of L.B. 994 were not presented to the Council or the Commission. Hauser's petition for review by the district court alleged: [T]he actions of the Defendant Council and Defendant Commission and each of them violated and prejudiced the substantial rights of the Plaintiff Hauser because such agency decision is: (i) In violation of constitutional provisions; (ii) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; (iii) Made upon unlawful procedure; (iv) Affected by other error of law; (v) Unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as made on review; (vi) Arbitrary or capricious; or (vii) In violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-1413 (Reissue 1999). These general allegations did not establish that the issues in question were presented to and considered by the district court. Thus, the district court did not have the opportunity to analyze the issues or reach a decision regarding them. An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court. Scurlocke v. Hansen, 268 Neb. 548, 684 N.W.2d 565 (2004). Therefore, we decline to consider Hauser's final assignments of error.