Nevada County’s Leadership and the Duty They Swore to Uphold
Public officials in Nevada County begin every term, and every meeting, with an oath and a pledge; solemn commitments to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. These are not ceremonial gestures. Under Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution and Government Code §§ 1360–1363, no public power may be exercised until the oath is sworn, and every subsequent act must remain within the boundaries of constitutional and statutory authority.
Yet, the pattern emerging in Nevada County tells a different story. Across multiple areas of governance, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and County Counsel have advanced or defended actions that conflict with constitutional requirements, state statutes, and established court precedent. These actions are not policy disagreements, they are departures from basic legal duties. And in each case, when residents asked officials to follow the law, they were dismissed or labeled “sovereign citizens,” despite relying on nothing more than the plain text of California’s own statutes and constitutional provisions.
The following issues, all documented through public records, timelines, and binding legal authority, illustrate a broader problem: a county leadership that has drifted away from the oath it swore.
Unlawful Appointment of the Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voter
On September 22, 2025, the Board of Supervisors appointed Armando Salud-Ambriz as Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters, to assume office on October 13. At the time of the vote, public records showed he was neither a resident nor a registered voter of Nevada County.
California law is unambiguous:
Government Code § 24001 requires county officers to be registered voters “at the time of their appointment.”
Government Code § 24002 and Elections Code § 201 make residency and voter registration mandatory qualifications.
Government Code § 25304 allows boards to fill vacancies but does not authorize appointing someone who is legally ineligible.
California Supreme Court precedent—People v. Stratton (1864) and People v. White (1867)—holds that appointments of unqualified individuals are void from the start. Attorney General opinions have repeatedly confirmed that eligibility cannot be postponed until the date an appointee takes office.
Despite this, County Counsel publicly asserted that eligibility was satisfied at the time the appointee “assumes office,” an interpretation that contradicts statute, precedent, and 160 years of legal doctrine.
This was not a policy disagreement; it was a failure to uphold basic law in one of the most sensitive roles in county government, elections administration.
Further compounding the appointment itself, the County has since used taxpayer-funded General Fund resources, including staff time, promotional materials, and County-hosted meet-and-greet events to publicly promote the Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters, conduct that implicates Government Code §§ 8314 and 54964 and risks violation of Article II of the California Constitution, which prohibits the use of public resources to influence elections or confer political advantage.
Attempt to Shift Election Cycles for Key County Offices
In July 2025, the BOS placed Ordinance SR 25-1940 on its agenda, proposing to move the elections for three countywide offices; Auditor-Controller, Treasurer-Tax Collector, and Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters—from 2026 to 2028.
The problem: all three officeholders are serving by appointments, not election.
California law is explicit:
Elections Code § 1300 allows realignment of election cycles only for elected officials, not appointees.
Government Code § 25304 requires that appointees appear on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled election.
Amendments under AB 759 did not grant authority to delay elections for appointed incumbents.
The public timeline sharpened the conflict: Auditor-Controller candidate Sal Alberti filed papers for the 2026 election in July 2025, days before the BOS introduced the ordinance. Hours before the public meeting, the ordinance was suddenly withdrawn without explanation, but I’m sure it was because of my comprehensive public notifications for the agenda item and reaching out to community stakeholders.
Had it passed, Nevada County would have improperly extended the terms of appointed officials beyond what law allows and removed voter choice from legally required elections.
This episode is one of the clearest examples of county leadership straying from statutory limits and the constitutional guarantee of elections.
Warrantless Drone Surveillance by the Community Development Agency (CDA)
Nevada County’s Community Development Agency operates unmanned aircraft systems (drones) for code-enforcement purposes. Their own published FAQ states plainly: “A search warrant is not required.”
This is contrary to controlling law:
The Fourth Amendment and Article I, §§ 1 & 13 of the California Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and guarantee privacy.
Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) — administrative inspections require warrants.
See v. City of Seattle (1967) — applies the same rule to businesses.
California’s administrative-inspection-warrant statutes (CCP §§ 1822.50–1822.60) codify this requirement.
People v. Cook (1985) — warrantless aerial surveillance of a backyard violates California’s independent privacy protections.
People v. Camacho (2000) and Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) — intrusion into non-public areas without a warrant constitutes a search.
Despite these authorities, CDA staff have used drones to collect images of private backyards and curtilage areas with the highest constitutional expectation of privacy.
The Board of Supervisors and County Counsel are legally responsible for ensuring compliance with constitutional limits, yet the drone program continues to operate without the warrant procedures the law requires.
Destruction of Drone Surveillance Records
CDA staff have publicly stated that raw drone footage is routinely deleted, with only selected clips retained. This practice raises major legal issues.
Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §§ 6250 et seq.), drone footage is a public record and must be preserved unless lawfully scheduled for destruction. The Brown Act (Gov. Code §§ 54950 et seq.) requires transparent public agency operations.
More critically:
California v. Trombetta (1984) — government may not destroy evidence that could be exculpatory.
People v. Superior Court (Bauman & Rose) (1984) — destruction of material evidence violates due process.
Selective deletion, especially in enforcement cases, deprives residents of potentially exculpatory information and undermines the fairness of administrative proceedings.
Unlawful Administrative Hearing Procedures
Nevada County’s administrative hearing structure, the system used to adjudicate code-enforcement and building-code disputes, is in direct conflict with California law and binding appellate precedent.
Instead of using a Local Appeals Board or Housing Appeals Board, as required by California Building Code § 1.8.8, Nevada County funnels appeals to a single “administrative hearing officer,” a contract attorney hired by County Counsel.
State law requires:
Appeals must be heard by an independent Local Appeals Board or Housing Appeals Board;
Members must be knowledgeable in building codes;
They cannot be employees of the enforcing agency;
If no board exists, the governing body (the BOS) must hear the appeal itself.
Nevada County complies with none of these.
The California Court of Appeal has twice rejected systems identical to Nevada County’s:
Lippman v. City of Oakland (2018) — a single contract hearing officer violates § 1.8.8.
Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (2024) — reaffirming that cities and counties cannot bypass appeals-board requirements by outsourcing adjudication.
Compounding the violation, the County Counsel plays conflicting roles, helping initiate enforcement actions, training and advising the hearing officers who adjudicate those actions, and advising the BOS on the legality of the same system.
A process where the prosecutor trains the judge is incompatible with due process.
This unlawful system results in biased hearings, improper delegation of quasi-judicial authority, and final decisions issued without lawful review by the governing body. Every continuation of this structure places the County, the BOS, and County Counsel in ongoing violation of statute, case law, and constitutional due-process guarantees.
Accountability and the Oath of Office: The Unifying Issue
Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution and Government Code §§ 1360–1363 make one point unmistakably clear: public officials do not have discretion to ignore constitutional or statutory requirements.
Across every issue documented here, county leadership, both the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel, took or defended actions that:
contradicted controlling statutes,
ignored binding case law,
exceeded constitutional authority, or
bypassed required public procedures.
Residents who point out these legal conflicts are not extremists or “sovereign citizens.” They are upholding the very constitutions that county officials swore to defend.
The pattern revealed across these issues is a governance culture in which the oath is treated as symbolic rather than binding, a recitation at the start of a meeting rather than a limit on government power.
Conclusion
The unlawful appointment, the attempt to shift election cycles, the warrantless drone surveillance, the destruction of surveillance records, and the unlawful administrative hearing procedures are not isolated administrative errors. They are documented departures from constitutional and statutory obligations that every county official is sworn to uphold.
Public office is not merely a position, it is a legal duty. The residents of Nevada County are entitled to governance grounded in law, transparency, and respect for constitutional limits. The facts presented here establish a strong basis for further investigation, accountability, and corrective action to restore lawful administration of county government.
