Tag Archives: law

Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) is the California Supreme Court’s landmark case on financial bias.

Key Principles You Can Use

  • A temporary or ad‑hoc hearing officer cannot be neutral if their future employment depends on pleasing the government agency hiring them.
  • The Court held that this creates an “unacceptable risk of bias” because the officer has a pecuniary interest in ruling for the agency.

How it applies to your facts

  • Windsor hires the hearing officer.
  • Windsor pays the hearing officer.
  • Windsor decides whether to hire them again.
  • Windsor is also the prosecuting party.

That is the exact configuration Haas prohibits.

  • Shelter Contract
     The Town pays the shelter a fixed monthly amount. If the Town loses, it undermines the justification for the seizure and the contract expenditures.
  • Town Attorney + Hearing Officer
     Both are paid by the same entity. Even if they are not direct colleagues, they are financially subordinate to the same employer.
  • Outcome Dependence
     A ruling against the Town is a ruling against the hearing officer’s own payor and potential future employer.

This is not about proving actual bias.
It’s about showing structural bias, which is enough under Haas.

 Government Code § 11425.30 — Functional Conflict

This statute bars anyone from serving as a presiding officer if they have acted as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate in the same proceeding.

You’re not arguing that the hearing officer literally prosecuted the case.
You’re arguing that:

  • Their financial dependency on the same employer as the prosecutor
  • Creates a functional alignment with the prosecuting agency.

California courts have repeatedly emphasized that the appearance of bias is enough to violate due process.

Commingling of Functions — Nightlife Partners

Nightlife Partners v. Beverly Hills reinforces that when prosecutorial and adjudicative functions are intertwined within the same entity, due process is compromised.

Your facts:

  • Town Attorney = prosecutor
  • Town Hearing Officer = adjudicator
  • Both paid by the same Town Council
  • Both subordinate to the same Town Manager

5. Rank/Subordination Conflict — Penal Code § 597.1(f)(6)

This statute requires that the hearing officer be independent from the seizing agency.

If the hearing officer is:

  • Paid by the Town
  • Appointed by the Town
  • Professionally subordinate to the Town
  • And the Town is the seizing agency

…then independence is impossible.

I object to the current hearing arrangement on the grounds of systemic financial bias and a violation of the Haas v. County of San Bernardino standard. The Town of Windsor is the employer and payor of the prosecuting attorney, the seizing agency (Animal Control), and the Hearing Officer. This creates an unacceptable risk of pecuniary bias because the Hearing Officer’s continued employment and future assignments are financially dependent on the same entity that initiated and seeks to uphold the seizure.

Under Haas, a temporary or ad-hoc hearing officer who relies on the appointing agency for future work has a disqualifying pecuniary interest. Additionally, the Town’s unified control over both prosecutorial and adjudicative functions constitutes impermissible commingling under Nightlife Partners v. Beverly Hills. The arrangement also violates the independence requirement of Penal Code § 597.1(f)(6) and the functional neutrality requirements of Government Code § 11425.30.

For these reasons, I respectfully move to disqualify the Hearing Officer for cause.

2022

Subject: Contesting Citations and Request for Advance Deposit Hardship Waiver

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally contest the citation(s) issued by the town of Windsor on the behalf of the property owner,at 7064 Hastings Pl, along with any other responsible party.

It is imperative to highlight that the actions taken by personnel of the town of Windsor represent a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which safeguards personal privacy and protects individuals from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property.

Upon careful examination of the records released by the town of Windsor, it is evident that there was no probable cause and no warrant for any investigation conducted. Furthermore, any complaint mentioned in the records pertains to a property behind 7064 Hastings Pl, not the property in question. The misidentification of a 25 ft 5th wheel trailer parked behind 7064 Hastings Pl as a reason for accusing the owners of code violations is perplexing and baseless.

Moreover, it appears that there was collusion between the town of Windsor and North Bay Animal Services to fabricate false documentation and claims against the property in question, with the aim of manufacturing probable cause. Such actions constitute a violation of USC code 42 section 1983, which holds individuals accountable for depriving others of their constitutional rights while acting under the color of law.

It is worth noting that North Bay Animal Services has since retracted their involvement due to their unlawful actions, which were not in compliance with state and federal laws. However, the town of Windsor has neglected to address these violations, thereby allowing them to persist.

These unlawful and malicious actions not only put the property owners at risk of financial hardship but also violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines. The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Bajakajian serves as a precedent, demonstrating that fines must be proportionate to the offense committed.

Furthermore, any evidence obtained through unlawful means, such as an unreasonable search and seizure, should be excluded from consideration, in accordance with the exclusionary rule. Therefore, any alleged evidence currently or planned to be used against the property owners of 7064 Hastings Pl should be deemed inadmissible.

Given the circumstances outlined above, I kindly request a waiver for the advance deposit hardship. The property owners, who are elderly and financially vulnerable, are already facing undue burden as a result of these citations and cannot afford to deposit additional funds.

Your prompt attention to this matter and fair consideration of our request are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Christina Urena