In Dixon v. Love (1977) 431 U.S. 105, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutional adequacy of an Illinois regulation which authorized the Secretary of State to revoke a driver's license without preliminary hearing where the license had been suspended three times within a ten-year period. The regulation provided for a full evidentiary hearing after revocation. The high court noted that the regulation set out a narrowly defined standard which gave precise notice of conduct that would be sanctioned ( Dixon v. Love, supra, at p. 115); moreover, the secretary's revocation decisions under the regulation were "largely automatic" ( id., at p. 113 52 L.Ed.2d at p. 180). The Court stated: "Since the licensee does not dispute the factual basis for the Secretary's decision, he is really asserting the right to appear in person only to argue that the Secretary should show leniency and depart from his own regulations. Such an appearance might make the licensee feel that he has received more personal attention, but it would not serve to protect any substantive rights. We conclude that requiring additional procedures would be unlikely to have significant value in reducing the number of erroneous deprivations." (431 U.S., at pp. 113-114.) Dixon v. Love, gives us a standard for determining whether due process has been violated. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed an Illinois statute which provided for the immediate suspension of drivers' licenses for repeated convictions of traffic offenses. The statute allowed an administrative hearing after the suspension of the license. In analyzing the law, the Dixon Court looked to three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, 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 finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Id.