Opinion ID: 1305632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Constitutional Hearing Requirement.

Text: The absence of a statutory hearing claim brings us to the primary fighting issue in this case: whether there is a constitutional right to a hearing as part of the risk assessment process arising from the Due Process Clauses of the federal and Iowa constitutions. See U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV, § 1; Iowa Const. art. I, § 9. Generally, a person has a constitutional due process right to an evidentiary hearing in accordance with contested case procedures if the underlying proceeding involves adjudicative facts, i.e., individualized facts peculiar to the parties, [which] ordinarily ``answer the questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, with what motive or intent.'' Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 836 (quoting Allegre v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 349 N.W.2d 112, 115 (Iowa 1984)). However, a party in not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the agency decision rests on legislative facts, or those generalized factual propositions, often consisting of demographical data and statistics compiled from surveys and studies, which aid the decision-maker in determining questions of policy and discretion. Id. Brummer's case presents the prototypical proceeding involving adjudicative facts. However, the process accorded Brummer up to this point has precluded a full consideration of those facts. Brummer has argued most vociferously over the assessment of risk factor values for a history of drug abuse and the number and nature of prior crimes, but also claimed that there were problems inherent in the assessment of points for the nature of his relationship to his victim. Each of these areas requires determinations resting on adjudicative facts. For instance, the guidelines issued to assist in the assessment process indicate that the relationship to victim risk factor category is used to identify perpetrators who take advantage of their position or status in order to offend such as: doctors, dentists, counselors, clergy, day care workers, teachers etc. The limited record in this case indicates that Brummer had taken a position running meetings for a youth support group for adolescents with substance abuse problems. Although this information might indicate that Brummer took advantage of his position or status in order to offend, there is no real context in which to evaluate whether this was actually the case. This absence of context is indicative of the vacuum in which decisions relevant to Brummer were made. Adjudicative facts should have been presented, considered, and processed to determine the appropriateness of assigning a risk factor value and to ensure the fundamental constitutional values guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses and the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. The facts missing in Brummer's case are not generalized factual propositions ... consisting of demographical data and statistics compiled from surveys and studies, which aid the decision-maker in determining questions of policy and discretion, but are instead individualized facts peculiar to Brummer, his offense, and any defense he might mount. Id. Because the underlying proceeding the risk assessmentinvolves adjudicative facts, an evidentiary hearing is required unless this case falls under one of the exceptions to the evidentiary hearing requirement for proceedings involving adjudicative facts. Id. at 837.