I am researching the COVID 2020 lockdowns in Los Angeles, where mayor turned off the electricity, for people who have parties and social gatherings. Did they have court trials proceedings before shutting off electricity, or did they have Police turn off electricity without due process trial?
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
There was probably due process
This article explains that due process is required and also explains what that means:
… one may not be deprived of a property interest without (1) notice, (2) an opportunity to be heard, and (3) a decision by a neutral judge. The mayor’s notice-only service interruption is, therefore, a gross abuse of power.
I’ve included the conclusion even though I don’t think it’s necessarily correct - it depends what’s in the notice whether due process has been afforded. If the notice is a “show cause” notice which gives an opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision maker (not necessarily a judicial officer), then that’s due process.
From what I can tell, the notice was delivered on or about 6 August 2020 and power was disconnected on 20 August - that’s plenty of time for submissions to be made and considered by the decision maker. It’s also plenty of time for an injunction to be sought if the person did not believe they were being afforded due process.
Now, is possible, even probable, that given what the occupants do for a living, they were quite happy to have their utilities shut off. All publicity is good publicity after all. They may therefore have chosen not to respond to the notice.
This is a situation where everyone is happy with the status quo - the influencers can play up their “victim” status and make lots of money, the mayor gets to be “tough” which no doubt plays well with his constituents. So, no one is going to challenge this in court. Now, if the city went after that revenue as “proceeds of crime” …
