Whether Martin can Challenge Constitutionality of Conviction Disclosure Requirement - Research Paper Example

Moayad Alhudaib Law 596 Walker 10/09 LLM OFFICE MEMO Real E Attorney, Henry Landsman Moayad Alhudaib 21-11-2011 RE: Whether Martin can Challenge Constitutionality of Conviction Disclosure Requirement Thesis The aim of this memo is to determine whether there is any legal grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the Rule that requires disclosure of a prior felony to apply for the licence of an appraiser. Statement of Rule Governing the Constitutionality of Requiring Disclosure of a Prior Felony Conviction Arizona’s Statutes, Article 2: Licensing and Certification under 32-3611 titled Licensure and certification process requires that State whether or not the applicant has ever been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction in this or any other state of a felony or of forgery, theft, extortion or conspiracy to defraud or any other crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude.

Analysis Martin’s defense that the prior felony disclosure requirement is unconstitutional requires to undertake two considerations, namely: (1) Purpose and (2) Precedent. The provision of prior disclosure for association is a common requirement practiced in all states and countries of the world. The Arizona’s Statutes it is incorporated to allow the Arizona Appraiser Board to analyze all the licence applicants in terms of their prior criminal records and any decision granted by the competent courts to respect them.

In Patterson v. Ryan, Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2011 the Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that “our court "consider[s] decisions of coordinate courts as highly persuasive and binding, unless we are convinced that the prior decisions are based upon clearly erroneous principles, or conditions have changed so as to render these prior decisions inapplicable." Thus, there is a clear purpose and benefit attached to the incorporation of the prior disclosure provision. The second part is to find any precedents to support the claim of unconstitutionality of prior disclosure provision.

In Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, the court held that the district office’s policy was unconstitutional as it did not require prior disclosure of felony. In Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 - Supreme Court 2011 the defense lawyer argued that district attorney’s office had violated Brady by failing to disclose the crime lab report in his armed robbery trial. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US1 - Supreme Court 1976 the appellants had argued that the disclosure provisions unconstitutionally impinge on their rights to freedom of association.

However, the court improvised that in order to decide the case, it is important to consider whether it is a case or a controversy and whether any party is directly benefited if the provision is declared unconstitutional. The court however, found that the appellant’s are the direct beneficiaries. The case was dismissed. Conclusion Based on the lack of precedents available in support of Martin’s claim of unconstitutionality of prior disclosure provision, it is concluded that Martin would not be able to successfully challenge the Board.