You have asked me to determine whether the procedures of Eliot Plan § 2 (“Plan”) are sufficient to satisfy the due process clause. For the reasons detailed below, the Plan does not violate procedural due process.
The first requirement of due process is that the person deprived of property must be given a notice or an opportunity for a hearing. In Goldberg v. Kelly, the court determined that the welfare recipient was entitled to a pre-termination hearing. In contrast, in Mathews v. Eldridge, the court determined that due process did not require a pre-termination hearing for social security disability benefits. The Mathews court distinguished Goldberg, saying that welfare recipients are in dire need; whereas eligibility for social security disability benefits is not based on financial need. As such, due process required prior to deprivation would be determined by a cost and benefit analysis. This balancing test, as it is known, considers three factors: the private interests affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the value of additional processes.
With respect to the first factor, the private interests in vehicles are important because vehicles are used for transportation to work, home, supermarkets, etc. If the owner’s contact information was not listed on the City’s 311 phone …show more content…
The current Plan guarantees a prompt post-deprivation hearing within 14 days of receiving a written notice of contention from the owner. The court in City of Los Angeles v. Edwin F. David found that a 27-day delay in holding a hearing for an illegally parked vehicle reflected “no more than a routine delay substantially required by administrative needs.” Similarly, here, the court is likely to find that the post-deprivation hearing is provided within a reasonable time and, as such, satisfies procedural due