Roth v. Reagen, 87-263

• Decision Date: 13 April 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-263,87-263
• Citation: 422 N.W.2d 464
• Parties: Larry ROTH, Appellant, v. Michael V. REAGEN, Commissioner, Iowa Department of Human Services, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 464

422 N.W.2d 464

56 USLW 2621

Larry ROTH, Appellant, v. Michael V. REAGEN, Commissioner, Iowa Department of Human Services, Appellee.

No. 87-263.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 13, 1988.

Robert F. Wilson and Deborah L. Leonard, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Gordon E. Allen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, CARTER, LAVORATO and ANDREASEN, JJ.

LAVORATO, Justice.

In his mandamus and declaratory judgment action against Michael V. Reagen, Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Human Services, Larry Roth alleged that Iowa Code section 235A.18(2) (1987) violated his rights of due process, privacy, and equal protection. The challenged provision of that statute requires the department to keep records of unfounded child abuse accusations for six months.

Roth maintains his summary judgment motion, and not the commissioner's, should have been granted. In his motion Roth asserted his constitutional rights were violated as a matter of law when the department kept such a record against him.

Finding no such violation, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The relevant facts here are undisputed. Roth was accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. When an investigation by the police and the department showed that the accusation was unfounded, a record of the accusation and the investigation's disposition was entered in the central registry for child abuse information. See Iowa Code § 235A.14. Registry information is highly confidential, see id. at § 235A.15, and disclosure of it to unauthorized persons is a criminal offense, id. at § 235A.21(1).

After the investigation, Roth asked the department to expunge his record from the registry. The department informed him that the record would be expunged six months after the date of the accusation, as required by Iowa Code section 235A.18(2). ¹

Roth brought this action one day before his record was to be expunged. He asked the district court, first, to order expungement of his record and, second, to declare section 235A.18(2) to be unconstitutional. He then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the facts were undisputed and that, as a matter of law, his constitutional rights had been violated.

The commissioner filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment, contending that Roth's request for expungement was moot and that he had failed to demonstrate any deprivation of constitutional rights. Roth replied that his claim for expungement was not moot because he had filed it while still listed in the registry and that entry of his name there deprived him of his constitutional rights.

The district court granted the commissioner's motion and denied Roth's. It held that Roth's request for expungement was moot and that his constitutional claims had no basis in law.

The district court decided the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment on the pleadings. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 237(c). Because the facts are not in dispute, the only question is what legal consequences flow from those facts. Thus, summary judgment is proper. See Jacobs v. Stover, 243 N.W.2d 642, 643 (Iowa 1976).

II. The Mootness Issue.

In count I of his two-count petition Roth sought mandamus relief against the commissioner to require him to remove Roth's name from the registry. See generally Iowa Code ch. 661. Roth asserted that the failure to expunge the record violated his constitutional rights of due process, privacy, and equal protection. By the time the district court ruled, the six-month requirement in section 235A.18(2) had expired. Hence, the district court found that the expungement "[had] been done" and that the issue was moot.

On appeal Roth challenges the district court's finding. He claims he has never received verification that the expungement has been accomplished. We find no merit in Roth's challenge.

Our mootness rule requires a claim to be dismissed "when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy." Toomer v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 340 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Iowa 1983). Thus, if the district court correctly found that expungement had been done, the issue was moot.

We note that Roth never contended in his memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment that the record had not been expunged. In his summary of the facts Roth seems to concede the record had remained only six months on the registry: "The Department ... investigated the accusation, found it to be unfounded and proceeded to damage his reputation by maintaining his name on the child abuse registry ... for ... six months...." (Emphasis added.) Given this statement, we think the district court could reasonably believe that Roth was conceding the record had been expunged.

Moreover, Roth did not file a motion to enlarge or amend the district court's finding even though "such a motion is permitted following entry of summary judgment." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pflibsen, 350 N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa 1984); see also Iowa R.Civ.P. 179(b), 237(c). A rule 179(b) motion is necessary to preserve error for our consideration "when a trial court fails to resolve an issue, claim, defense, or legal theory properly submitted to it for adjudication." Pflibsen, 350 N.W.2d at 206.

We conclude the district court correctly dismissed count I as moot.

III. The Constitutional Issues.

In count II of his petition, Roth sought relief declaring section 235A.18(2) unconstitutional because it violated his rights of due process, privacy, and equal protection of the law. Our decision that count I is moot, however, renders count II moot as well. Because we need not order expungement of Roth's record, a constitutional decision now would afford him no additional relief. See Toomer, 340 N.W.2d at 598.

Normally, we would refrain from addressing any constitutional issues unnecessary for the disposition of a case. See, e.g., Diehl v. Iowa Beer & Liquor Control Dep't, 422 N.W.2d 480, 481 (Iowa 1988); In re J.A.N., 346 N.W.2d 495, 498 (Iowa 1984). Here, however, we think the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine applies. This exception allows consideration of moot issues "when (1) they are of great public importance and (2) are likely to recur." Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983). We think these conditions are satisfied here. Hence, we turn to the constitutional issues in count II of Roth's petition.

In alleging violations of his due process, privacy, and equal protection rights, Roth does not specify the constitution or constitutional provision that was allegedly violated. In his motion for summary judgment Roth asserted that both the United States and the Iowa constitutions were violated, making no reference to any particular provisions of these documents. In his memorandum in support of the motion, Roth similarly mentions both constitutions but again makes no reference to any particular provisions.

It appears from the district court's ruling that it decided the due process, privacy, and equal protection challenges under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and found no violation.

Roth filed no rule 179(b) motion requesting enlargement or amendment of the court's findings. Thus, we similarly confine ourselves to a discussion of the due process, privacy, and equal protection challenges under the fourteenth amendment. In doing so, we note Roth continues to assert on appeal these federal and state constitutional violations without designating the particular provision that was violated.

We accord a strong presumption of constitutionality to statutes. State v. James, 393 N.W.2d 465, 467 (Iowa 1986). One who challenges a statute as unconstitutional

assume[s] a heavy burden as the following propositions are well established. Ordinarily statutes regularly enacted by the legislature will be accorded a strong presumption of constitutionality and all reasonable intendments must be indulged in favor of the legislation attacked. One who challenges legislation on constitutional grounds has the burden to negate every reasonable basis upon which the statute may be sustained. Where the constitutionality of a statute is merely doubtful or fairly debatable, the courts will not interfere. Thus a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and without doubt, infringes the Constitution.

The judicial branch of the government has no power to determine whether the legislative Acts are wise or unwise, nor has it the power to declare an Act void unless it is plainly and without doubt repugnant to some provision of the Constitution.

State v. Hall, 227 N.W.2d 192, 193 (Iowa 1975) (citations omitted); accord James, 393 N.W.2d at 467.

A. The Due Process Challenge. Roth's argument in support of his contention that section 235A.18(2) violated his due process rights is simply this. Before one can constitutionally be deprived of a property interest, procedural due process must be followed. One's reputation is a property interest sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Before any deprivation of that interest, the process due is notice and an opportunity to be heard. The opportunity to be heard includes the right to have the matter heard by a tribunal having jurisdiction of the case and to have the matter resolved in a manner consistent with essential fairness.

Roth asserts he was unconstitutionally deprived of his reputation when the unfounded sexual abuse record was maintained in the registry for six months. According to Roth, the deprivation occurred because he was not notified of such action and was not given an opportunity to be heard and to have his name removed.

The weak link in Roth's argument is his assertion that reputation is a property interest sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the due process clause. This same argument was...