New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement v. Wirtz
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2007 WL 486740 (2007)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
On February 7, 1990, David Wirtz (plaintiff), mistakenly under the belief that he was about to be sexually assaulted, fired a rifle at a police officer and social worker who attempted to forcibly enter his room at a boardinghouse. After treatment of his injuries, Wirtz was confined in a psychiatric hospital due to symptoms of schizophrenia. Wirtz was charged with various felonies, including attempted murder, but he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial judge found that Wirtz posed a danger to himself or others and ordered that Wirtz continue to be confined to a psychiatric hospital subject to periodic reviews. By 2000, Wirtz was permitted to live independently while remaining under treatment and monitoring. Every three months, Wirtz visited a psychiatric physician who would confirm that Wirtz continued to be medicated but otherwise did not provide any treatment. In August 2000, Wirtz obtained a casino-service-employee registration from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission (the commission) (defendant), which allowed him to work as a slot-marketing representative for Bally’s Casino. When Wirtz was promoted to the position of slot-service host, a position requiring licensure, he was granted a temporary license. Wirtz then held his position without incident until May 2002, when the Division of Gaming Enforcement (the division) filed a complaint with the commission seeking revocation of Wirtz’s registration and a denial of his application for a permanent license. The licensing hearing was held, during which the hearing examiner noted that there were no safeguards in place, such as surprise testing, to ensure that Wirtz maintained his medication. On this basis, the hearing examiner held that Wirtz failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation and was therefore disqualified from licensure under New Jersey law. The commission adopted the hearing examiner’s reasoning and confirmed the decision. Wirtz appealed. Wirtz argued, in part, that he was denied due process because he had received no specification of what evidence would be required to establish rehabilitation, including evidence of safeguards to monitor compliance with medication.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.