FACTS In November 2000, Albert Kendall’s fish plant was audited by the Hypoville Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The commission found evidence that Mr. Kendall had a fish catch that was double his license limit. Criminal charges were brought against Mr. Kendall, but were subsequently dropped due to technical deficiencies. The Department wrote advised against him being issued a 2003 fishing license. The Department attached numerous documents to the letter. Mr. Kendall was told that he could make written submissions to the ALJ prior to a decision being made on his 2003 fishing license. Mr. Kendall did not submit any evidence to counter the evidence presented in the letter, but instead Mr. Kendal made arguments about why the license should be issued. Subsequently the license was denied. The question presented is two –fold, have the procedural due process requirements been satisfied, and does a “paper hearing”, to determine whether the license should be granted or revoked, satisfy the due process requirements?
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976), Set forth an identifying process that is required in determining if a license should or should not be revoked: “(1) the nature of the property interest; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used; and (3) the nature of the government’s interest.” The Court also stated that a license holder “can only be deprived of his license if he is convicted of the underlying criminal offense.” In this case the Court looked at the nature of the government’s interest and found that the appellant’s property interest was “constrained by the state’s interest in protecting and preserving its natural resources.”
Woodrow v. Wildlife Comm'n, Dep't of Natural Res., 206 P.3d 835, 838 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009), determined that “in an administrative setting, procedural due process requires