Justice Michael Douglas on Criminal Justice
From Judgepedia
Before the Court En Banc, and over the dissents of Justices James Hardesty and Maupin, Justice Michael Douglas authored the majority opinion, which ruled that an inmate’s parole hearing was a quasi judicial proceeding, and therefore, was not subject to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
While Justices James Hardesty and Maupin agreed that parole hearings are exempt from Nevada’s Open Meeting Law, the two justices partially dissented on the grounds that determining whether a hearing was a quasi-judicial proceeding based on “minimum” due process safeguards would “eviscerate the purpose of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. Instead, the dissent argues that quasi judicial proceedings should be based on the Judicial Function Test.
- ON THE LEGISLATURE’S INTENT IN ADOPTING THE OPEN MEETING LAW: “[i]n enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
- ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW: “To ensure that public bodies take actions and deliberate openly, the Open Meeting Law requires that public bodies ‘give the public clear notice of the topics to be discussed at public meetings so that the public can attend a meeting when an issue of interest will be discussed.” In addition, “the notice must include an agenda that denotes a period of public comment.”
- ON THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING: “We explained that ‘[a]t minimum, a quasi-judicial proceeding must afford each party (1) the ability to present and object to evidence, (2)the ability to cross-examine witnesses, (3) a written decision from the public body, and (4) an opportunity to appeal to a higher authority.”
- ON WHY PAROLE HEARINGS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ARE NOT COVERED BY THE OPEN MEETING LAW: “Because the Legislature intended that parole hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings, and, as of October 1, 2007, that NRS 213.130 and related statues provide the exclusive rights to ‘any person” with respect to parole hearings, any rights flowing form the Open Meeting Law do not extend to parole hearings.”
- ON THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF DETERMINING QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BASED MINIMUM DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS: "Pursuant to Stockmeier, any public body may implement modest due process protections to qualify as quasi-judicial and thereby exempt itself from the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.
- ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION TEST: "The majority concludes that parole hearings are quasi-judicial because the Board performs a quasi-judicial function. The majority's holding is thus compatible with the well-recognized judicial function test adopted by many other jurisdictions. I believe that we should adopt this test and overrule Stockmeier, to the extent that it relies solely on the existence of minimum due process safeguards to determine whether an entity performs a quasi-judicial function.
