Is it a violation of due process for a public committee to have no regular rules of order? Many committees operate by Robert's Rules of Order, but there are others that have no fixed rules and I have observed public committees in some cases acting arbitrarily. Is it a violation of due process if a public committee that governs administration of municipality to act with no written rules or procedures?
In most cases, the failure to use Robert's Rules of Order will not be a violation of due process. To be a violation, (1) due process must be required; and (2) the procedure must either (a) fail to satisfy the elements of due process (notice and a hearing); or (b) be inadequate. Was due process required? As a threshold matter, the Fifth Amendment provides due-process protection only when you are going to be &quot;deprived of life, liberty, or property.&quot; The vast majority of government action comes and goes without anyone being deprived of any legally cognizable life, liberty or property interest. This would probably include votes to approve a budget, name a street, designate a holiday, and so on. In those cases, no one is entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Was due process provided? But the government often does implicate those interests, in matters across the spectrum of seriousness, from imposing the death penalty to imposing jail time to seizing property to handing out parking tickets. Determining whether the Fifth Amendment is satisfied involves two tests. First, you'll look to see whether the basic elements of due process are satisfied. That means looking for (1) notice of the decision to be made; and (2) an opportunity for the affected person to make their case; (3) before a neutral decision-maker. In the absence of those elements, there is no due process. Was the procedure adequate? But even when those elements are present, the process may still be &quot;inadequate,&quot; as you're suggesting the committee procedures are here. When the government provides procedural protections, they must be &quot;tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349 (1976). You've suggested that Robert's Rules would be the appropriate way to provide due process. Under Eldridge, a court would determine whether that additional safeguard (or any other) was required by balancing three considerations: &quot;First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action.&quot; Is the government trying to take your home and sell it to developers or is it holding your car until you pay off your parking tickets? It's not clear what kind of committee you're imagining, but the greater deprivation it can work, the greater greater protections it must provide. &quot;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.&quot; Is there any objective evidence that the current system is getting the wrong results? Is there any reason to think that the proposed change would result in more accurate decisions? If there's some reason to think that Robert's Rules is going to result in better decisions, it's more likely to be required. If it's not, don't expect a court to require it. I'd argue that this is the most important part of the test. &quot;Finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.&quot; How important is the objective the government is trying to achieve? Ensuring public health and safety are toward the top of the list, so the government will get a little more leeway in determining how to handle them. Fining people for letting their grass get too tall is less important, so the government isn't going to be given as much license to screw around. Then, given the importance of those functions, this basically becomes a test for practicality. Would the proposed change impose serious administrative burdens? Would it be cost-prohibitve? You can impose Robert's Rules probably for nothing more than the cost of a copy of the book, but properly applied, it's an incredibly complex process that imposes serious administrative burdens. Without knowing what kind of committee action you're talking about, it's hard to say how these rules would apply, but I'm comfortable guessing that Robert's Rules would not be required. But assuming that the committee has the power to work some kind of deprivation of life, liberty or property, it probably would be a due-process problem if they had no rules of order whatsoever. This was sort of the same problem that arose in CNN v. Trump just last month.
There is a state law that requires you to obey the police: ORC 2917.13, which says you may not Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. If you do, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree. You also cannot Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind "Hamper" is not defined statutorily, but the plain meaning of "hamper" is not the same as "fail to assist". We have not established that the order is lawful, however, which is crucial. The police cannot just freely search a residence without permission. If they have permission from the occupant, they can search and seize. If they have probable cause to believe that a crime exists and the circumstances make a warrant impractical, they can search and seize. I don't know what you mean by "wellness check", but that seems plainly to be unlawful entry. However, if the resident calls 911 and reports that he is having an issue, that is sufficient consent for entry. In the case of a fire alarm, the fire code authorizes a fire department official in charge of an actual emergency response incident to order the evacuation of a building, and occupants are required to comply. If we suppose that the smoke detector in a room has gone off, the fire department is authorized to inspect for fire, and there is a provision under the law about failure to obey a lawful command (to open the door so that they can look for fire). Problem: you cannot know whether the order is lawful. The officer doesn't decide what is lawful, the courts do (after the fact), and typically a command is found to be lawful unless it is clearly unlawful. The order from your supervisor is not "enforceable" in the sense that you cannot be arrested, imprisoned, or fined for disobeying your boss. However, there is a potential club they can use against you, namely firing you for disobeying the order. Normally, you can be fired for wearing the wrong shirt. But there are laws about employers doing illegal things, such as ORC 4113.52, which provides recourse when the employee reasonably believes that the violation is a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to persons or a hazard to public health or safety etc. In which case you report this to the supervisor, they have 24 hours after getting the report to correct the situation, and after that you would report the situation to the county prosecutor. (Read all of the details in the linked law, don't just skip steps: this is an executive summary). Having done this, you are protected from being fired, demoted. reassigned etc. The employer will be strongly motivated to not incur the penalties for violating the whistle blower statute. Additionally, you can sue the employer if they fire you for refusing to violate the law (termination in violation of public policy).
The community charges $300 annually for access to the community pool, to which I only actually used the first three years living here. It likely does not matter whether you used the pool or not. I was handed a case by a police officer today saying I have exactly 30 days upon receiving the letter to pay dues for the community pool for the past 8 years that I have not used it. I imagine the result of failure to pay the HOA fee is a lien on the property. I don't know whether foreclosure is an option but it might be. The communities HOA has made it incredibly difficult to contact to ask for a copy of the rules and regulations, since their automated phone system demands a pin of some sort to which it swiftly disconnects you if you do not have it. This is not likely to be a valid excuse for not paying the HOA dues. You almost certainly owe them regardless and you probably also owe any late charges or penalties associated with not paying on time. My question is, can they legally force me to pay this fee? Nobody can force you to pay. But if they present their case in court and win, the judge can force you to pay, have your assets seized, garnish your wages, or put you in jail if you refuse. That comes pretty close. Is there another way to obtain a copy of the community rules and regulations? Of course. Send certified letters requesting the CCRs to: The HOA office The government office where the deed is recorded If the CCRs are valid and binding something to that effect will be recorded on the deed. If so, the current valid and binding CCRs may be filed with the government or may only be available from the HOA. I am not a lawyer. If you have $2,400 to pay I suggest you pay it and stay current on all future payments. HOAs that actually notice missing fees are not to be trifled with. If you think they are making your life miserable now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
There is a special type of law enforcement officer, called a &quot;bailiff&quot; who is charged with maintaining order in a courtroom, and often, a bailiff is a direct subordinate of a judge who must follow the judge's orders. Judges can also issue special kinds of court orders, called &quot;writs&quot; which are a direction to a law enforcement agency generally to take certain action. But, in these cases, the law enforcement agency is effectively an &quot;independent contractor&quot; in relationship to the judge with considerable discretion regarding precisely how and when a writ is carried out. Somebody in the law enforcement agency to which a writ is directed is required to take action, but no individual law enforcement officer is personally compelled to comply with this order. The quote in question is not a statement about the legal authority of a judge, however. It is a statement of &quot;realpolitik&quot;. The judge can't physically force or threaten law enforcement to do what they are told to do by a judge. The cops have the guns, not the judges. Instead, the judge relies upon law enforcement obeying the judge's orders because that is what law enforcement officers do. It's right in the job title. But, if law enforcement chose to ignore judges, in general, there is very little that judges could do about that (and in some countries, law enforcement does routinely ignore judicial directions). Some forms of executive branch authority to defy judicial orders is even legally codified, most starkly in the case of the pardon power.
The Florida Supreme Court has held in State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 Fla. that if a law enforcement agency manufactures drugs for use in a reverse-sting operation, then this constitutes governmental misconduct and is a violation of the Florida Constitution due process clause and that a conviction in these circumstances should be reversed. That is, the manufacturing of a controlled substance may be grounds for reversing a conviction which relies on that substance. However, based on this judgement, the circumstance you describe would not be a violation of due process. From the judgement, at 466: Section 893.02(12)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), defines &quot;manufacture&quot; as: the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance either directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container.... Further, the judgement distinguishes State v Bass 451 So.2d 986 (1984) wherein law enforcement officials delivered marijuana obtained from federal agents to defendants as part of a reverse-sting operation. At Appeal, it was held that law enforcement officials do not need statutory authority to &quot;engage in reverse-sting deliveries of controlled substances&quot;. That is, simply using drugs from a pharmacy without modification, repackaging or otherwise relabelling, does not constitute conduct so outrageous as to violate Florida's due process clause, and on the facts that you have presented, there is no evidence that a due process defence would be held.
There are literally hundreds of such laws. Most of them (perhaps all, if we exclude firearms-related crimes in Title 26) are contained in Title 18 of the US Code, part I. The problem is that your definition of "public insurrection" is too broad, since it would include lying to federal agents (a crime), insofar as the reason for 18 USC 1001 is to prevent impeding federal investigations by giving them false information. Assaulting a federal agent impedes government and is a crime. There is pretty much a federal version of any state-level crime of violence. There is the riot act, and a specific law against insurrection and rebellion. Chapter 115 is probably the most relevant: this is where the various "overthrowing the government" laws are.
At the federal level, there is no real equivalent to what you're describing. A probable cause hearing evaluates the government's evidence in a similar way, but it doesn't ask whether a reasonable jury would convict. The closest I can think of is a Rule 29 motion, which does ask that question, but not until trial has already begun. You typically make the motion at the close of the government's case, and (if it was not successful) again at the close of your own, though I've heard tales of judges granting the motion at the end of the government's opening statement. The states all have their own rules, but they're generally pretty similar to the federal rules in this respect, as I understand it. I don't know of any state that allows the kind of motion you're talking about, in criminal cases, at least. In civil cases, I think everyone has Rule 12(b)(6) motions, which ask the court for a pretrial determination that there's no set of facts that could establish liability on the plaintiff's theory of the case.
Prior to that act, civil procedure in federal courts was non-uniform (historical overview). The main problem seems to be that courts were supposed to conform to the procedure of the state in which the court is located (as mandated by the Conformity Act of 1872). The "has to" reason is that SCOTUS at the time did not feel that it was authorized by the Constitution to write its own rules when Congress could have done so, see Wright &amp; Miller Federal Practice and Procedure. The root problems seems to be the Process Acts of 1789 and 1792, which in the latter case did not allow courts to set rules for actions at law, and in the former case required courts to apply rules in effect when the state joined the Union (regardless of how the rules changed subsequently).