Apache County’s Contradictory Actions: A Tale of Private Roads and Public Citations
Background
In a baffling series of events, Apache County has found itself embroiled in a legal quagmire surrounding the status of roads within the Concholakeland subdivision. The county has not only recorded these roads as private in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) but has also issued citations to residents, including Reverend Joseph Lathus, for obstructing a public thoroughfare. This contradictory stance has raised serious questions about the county’s motivations and adherence to due process.
Private Roads in CCRs
The CCRs of the Concholakeland subdivision clearly delineate the roads within the subdivision as private. These documents, recorded without dispute by Apache County, establish that the maintenance, access, and control of these roads fall under the purview of the homeowners' association and the residents themselves.
Issuance of Citation
Despite the recorded status of these roads, the Apache County Sheriff's Office issued a citation to Reverend Joseph Lathus for allegedly obstructing a public thoroughfare. This action directly contradicts the county's own documentation and raises the issue of procedural impropriety.
Justice of the Peace’s Ruling
Justice of the Peace Gary Ciminski's recent court order has further complicated matters. The order, stemming from a motion filed by Reverend Lathus, states that the determination of whether the road in question is public or private is a matter to be resolved at trial. This ruling underscores the unresolved nature of the road’s status and questions the legitimacy of the citation issued to Lathus.
Court Order Highlights
1. Motion to Appear Telephonically:
- Reverend Lathus filed a motion to appear telephonically at the bench trial, citing his stage 2 cancer diagnosis. The motion was denied, requiring him to appear in person.
2. Motion to Dismiss:
- Lathus also filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the road is private. This motion was dismissed, with the court indicating that the road’s status is a fact to be determined at trial.
3. Contradiction:
- The contradiction between the county’s recorded CCRs and the citation issued by the Sheriff’s Office is glaring. The court’s acknowledgment that the road’s status is undetermined highlights this discrepancy.
Implications of the Citation
The issuance of a citation for obstructing a public thoroughfare without clear evidence that the road is public reflects a significant procedural oversight. This action not only undermines the legitimacy of the citation but also suggests potential misuse of authority.
- Lack of Maintenance Records:
- The county has failed to provide maintenance records that would typically be necessary to establish a road as public. The absence of such records supports the argument that the road is private, as documented in the CCRs.
- Potential Personal Vendettas:
- Allegations have surfaced that the citation and other actions against Reverend Lathus are driven by personal vendettas, particularly involving County Commissioner Carey Dobson. This potential abuse of power further taints the legitimacy of the county’s actions.
Legal and Procedural Concerns
The conflicting actions of Apache County raise serious legal and procedural concerns:
- **Due Process Violations:**
- Issuing a citation based on an unresolved matter violates principles of due process. Reverend Lathus's right to a fair and impartial determination of the road's status is compromised by the premature issuance of the citation.
- **Abuse of Authority:**
- The involvement of Commissioner Dobson, coupled with the lack of clear evidence to support the citation, suggests an abuse of authority. This situation parallels other cases where government officials' actions were scrutinized for improper motives and procedural lapses.
#### Relevant Case Law and Statutes
- **Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990):**
- This case discusses procedural due process violations, emphasizing the need for proper legal processes before depriving individuals of their rights.
- **Schenk v. County of Maricopa, 130 Ariz. 232, 635 P.2d 944 (Ct. App. 1981):**
- This case addresses government officials' duty of care, highlighting the importance of adhering to established procedures and maintaining public trust.
- **A.R.S. § 11-461:**
- This statute outlines the duties of county recorders, emphasizing the need for accurate records and adherence to legal standards.
- **Coulter v. Stewart, 84 Ariz. 326, 327 P.2d 1005 (1958):**
- This case reinforces the obligations of county officials to maintain accurate records and act within their legal bounds.
#### Conclusion
The contradictory actions of Apache County, recording roads as private in the CCRs while issuing citations for obstructing a public thoroughfare, reveal significant procedural and legal issues. The requirement for a trial to determine the road's status, as indicated by Justice of the Peace Gary Ciminski, underscores the unresolved nature of this matter. These events highlight the need for thorough legal scrutiny and adherence to due process to ensure that residents' rights are protected and that government officials are held accountable for their actions.
