1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 25, 127 N.M. 254, 980 P.2d 37 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A reviewing court’s determination of what process is due in an administrative proceeding results from a balancing of (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. ¶ 26 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S nced against ABCWUA’s and NMIEC’s private interest in just and reasonable utility rates. See § 62-3-1 (B) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we turn to the second prong of
holding that a private invasion whether accidental or deliberate reasonable or unreasonable does not violate the fourth amendment because of its private character recognizing the public interest exception recognizing the private interest in reasonable and proper service at fair just and reasonable rates recognizing that the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private recognizing private right of action