Can a municipality ignore the rules of evidence for charges relating to violation of a municipal ordinance?
<p>My Township has an ordinance relating to grass needing to be cut on a regular basis. The penalties for violating include fines up to $1,000 and jailtime. Presumably the latter is not used on the regular, but given it is written into the ordinance as a penalty I would think that means violating this ordinance constitutes a criminal offense.</p>
<p>For the purposes of adjudicating this ordinance, the administrative rules stipulate that a hearing by a Public Officer must occur and that the, &quot;rules of evidence prevailing in the Courts shall not be controlling in hearings before the Public Officer.&quot;</p>
<p>Given the penalties for violating this ordinance include a loss of liberty, is it unlawful for this ordinance to dismiss the rules of evidence? It seems to be this would deny a defendant the right to a fair trial.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>In the United States, only a very few rules of evidence (most notably the &quot;confrontation clause which is similar to the hearsay rule but not identical) have constitutional status.</p>
<p>Other rules of evidence are not constitutionally required so long as the proceedings as a whole do not deny the defendant due process of law.</p>
<p>Often, local government court systems are not required to follow the rules of evidence that are adopted in the state court system.</p>

new-jersey rules-of-evidence local-ordinance nuisance