I don't believe you are 100% correct... I don't remember reading in the article that the woman had been "served" with a summons; only that she had been "cited", with the citations being mailed to her and claims that her mail was not being forwarded to he temporary out-of-town address.(I wish the original article was still available for free reading...)<quoted text>
You stand corrected: The woman was put in jail for failing to respond to previous court summons (plural) which stemmed from failure to maintain her yard and/or ensuring that a "maintenance company" was doing so.
Then you will stand corrected again: It isn't the "codes people" who say as you claim. Codes enforcement are hired & trained to uphold the municipal statutes/codes by enforcing them & ensuring that all violators will comply with the laws. The "codes people" didn't just decide on a whim what is to be addressed. There are existing city & county statutes, and some of them were put into place by the city council and/or county commission. Codes enforcement officers just get the bad rap, just as LCPD and DASO for enforcing the laws of the land.
So, if one does not respond to citations, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail, for weeds, is it justifiable to arrest them and book them into jail? I think not; particularly considering the reputation of the postal service in Las Cruces. More fundamentally, is this an infraction of such magnitude justifying a judge to issue a bench warrant for arrest when the claimants (Codes Enforcement) can't prove that a citation has been personally received by the party being cited.
Before you jump to conclusions - please stop and think about this for a while. Your very own civil liberties may be at stake.