in having preferred vanity plates if she does not receive a hearing before the plates are revoked. It will ordinarily be apparent on the face of a vanity plate whether it is “offensive ... to the general public.” Vr. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 304(d). Accordingly, it is only the rare case — in which there is room for genuine factual dispute as to the sensibilities of the “general public” — in which a pre-revocation hearing will reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of particular vanity plates. In short, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Due Process Clause did not vest Perry with a right to a hearing before her vanity plates were revoked. Cf., e.g., Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Sutton v. City of Milwaukee, 672 F.2d 644
holding insufficient officers advisement that defendants license may be suspended if he refused to submit to breath test when statute mandates that license will be suspended for refusal of chemical test holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a vehicle stop where official license and registration records reflected that the vehicle was registered to a driver with a revoked license holding motorist entitled to hearing before taking his license under statute that required loss of license if uninsured driver involved in an accident holding a drivers license may be summarily suspended before any hearing has been provided where official records show that a particular driver has an ex traordinarily poor driving record holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law