Reference no: EM131104899

In November 2010, officials from the Hypoville Department of Wildlife and Fisheries reviewed Albert Kendall's fish plant and found evidence that he had a fish catch which was double his license limit.Criminal charges were brought against Kendall but due to technical deficiencies, the charges were dropped two years later.A month later, the Department wrote to Kendall advising that it would recommend that he not be issued a 2013 fishing license.Numerous documents were attached to the letter.Kendall was also advised that he could make written submissions to the ALJ prior to the decision being made.Rather than submitting any evidence to counter the evidence presented in the letter, Kendall's counsel made arguments about why the license should be issued.The license was denied.

Have procedural due process requirements been satisfied? Your response should discuss (in part) whether a "paper hearing" to determine whether a fishing license should be granted or revoked satisfies procedural due process requirements, or is a full oral hearing required to sort out the issues in this case?Why/why not?Please cite to one or more cases in your response.