Trouble with California

[pitch]

Ag. Check points;we all know understand and tolerate them,never a problem.
Couple of weeks ago we were heade to redwood. National forest from Grants Pas Oregon.
Ag check ahead, ok I fall into line with everyone else,multiple lanes,cars trucks,other rv,s. Everyone pauses about thirty seconds and moves on. Normal right?
My turn, she looks at my NY tags,Have you any fresh fruits or vegetables on board?"
"No we Don,t"
"w
When was the last time this vehicle was in Ny?"
"About 8or9weeks ago."

She then grabs a flashlight and inspection miror and gives the undercarriage of both truck and trailer a thorough going over. She then does a second tour inspecting the roof area.
I was quite surprised,but oh well not an imposition.
"I would like to inspect the interior"

"Not with out a warrant"
"Sir Weare trying to protect our agricultural resources"

"I understand that,bbut you are not entering my trailer without a warrant !"

She gave me a look that could kill,and entered her both and made a phone call.

Minute is so later she comes out,shoves a handful of invasive critter literature into my hand and said,"move on"

Has anyone else been subjected to such nonsense,or did this inspector just have a bone for New Yorkers?

[am1958]

Actually, upon reflection, someone should close this thread before Sam does himself a critical injury...

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

That is exactly what I have been saying - the food/Ag Drone has no power to search and his/her only chance to be allowed to search is through the permission of the traveler... a refusal to be searched means that you nor your goods may not enter. If you turn around and drive away then there is absolutely nothing the drone can or should do...

Nice weasel out!

Isn't that what everyone suggested to the OP and where you lied and scared them sh!tless with psychiatrically paranoid rant that they are "giving up their rights"?

You can now raise your pants backup and pretend nothing happened.

Actually you can continue on like this guy did. :B

[Yosemite_Sam1]

am1958 wrote:

That is exactly what I have been saying - the food/Ag Drone has no power to search and his/her only chance to be allowed to search is through the permission of the traveler... a refusal to be searched means that you nor your goods may not enter. If you turn around and drive away then there is absolutely nothing the drone can or should do...

Nice weasel out!

Isn't that what everyone suggested to the OP and where you lied and scared them sh!tless with psychiatrically paranoid rant that they are "giving up their rights"?

You can now raise your pants backup and pretend nothing happened.

[am1958]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
And when the reading comprehension challenged also lied because that statement, given in quotation mark to make it appear to have actually been said, is not true. It is also interpreted out of context.

"implied waiver", my actual statement, is far from "giving up rights."

Even without the lawyer brother, I have enough law units to know that constitutional rights are sacrosanct. But know too, that in situations of facilitation in the conduct of law enforcement or practicality, some specific requirements of the law, in this case the need for search warrant, can be waived as, again, a decided jurisprudence.

Ah, the recurring problem with simple-mindedness and the failure of educational system specifically the basics of reading comprehension, well, could be genetics.

As I predicted, you passed over the fact that the state's web site clearly states that the search is voluntary in favor of trying to be a smart arse. You fail to comprehend that the reason that even the over-reaching government of Commiefornia know that their Food/Ag drones do not have the power to search without permission thus the search is, per their own words, voluntary. They are not LEO's they are "bug seekers", period, and therefore the Supreme's decision does not apply. They can refuse entry for refusal to succumb but they cannot compel a search. It's becoming clear that you are a little hard of thinking but please sit down in a quiet place and think about that for a few minutes - it might help...

As to my misquoting you... I really couldn't be bothered wasting my time wading through your endless buffoonery to make sure the quote was perfect but we both know that I was close enough...

Alan_Hepburn wrote:

am1958 wrote:

What Legal Authority do your inspectors have to stop and check my vehicle?

The Department’s legal authority for conducting vehicle and commodity inspections lies in the California Food and Agricultural Code, specifically Sections 5341-5353 and 6301-6465. Although submitting to inspection is voluntary, vehicle and commodities are not allowed to enter until released by an inspector.

Highlighting added by me to make sure you don't skip over it...

...and then there's the second clause in your emphasised sentence that says the vehicle cannot proceed until released by the inspector. Sounds to me like it's "Let me inspect you of you can turn around and go back the way you came".

That is exactly what I have been saying - the food/Ag Drone has no power to search and his/her only chance to be allowed to search is through the permission of the traveler... a refusal to be searched means that you nor your goods may not enter. If you turn around and drive away then there is absolutely nothing the drone can or should do...

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Navegator I can make the same argument with any number of things.

Lets pick illegal drugs.

Illegal drugs cost almost a 1/4 of a million lives in the world each year. It also costs over a 1/2 a TRILLION dollars in the US economy.

That being said; should be have warrantless searches at all state borders looking for drugs? After all, illegal drugs cost lives AND a lot of money and not just the cost of some fruit.

Should we do it at every county line? Neighborhoods? Should we just give police the power to just come into your home without any warrant if they think you have drugs? Maybe we should do away with that pesky 4 amendment?

After all, illegal drug use costs us a lot more money than Med Flys ever did and ever will.

Maybe the persons that get all huffy and puffy with police searching for drugs without warrants would like to pay some of the tax payers for the loss and the hospitals for trying to save the drug addict?

Wow, this earned the 2nd FUD (thanks @time2roll) for the day.

But yes, illegal drugs is enough grounds for inspection and interdiction in the state border.

Yes, illegal drugs is enough probable cause for LEO to ask for the inspection and search of your vehicle.

And no, homes are not part of "automobile exception" -- the topic of this thread.

[Alan_Hepburn]

am1958 wrote:

What Legal Authority do your inspectors have to stop and check my vehicle?

The Department’s legal authority for conducting vehicle and commodity inspections lies in the California Food and Agricultural Code, specifically Sections 5341-5353 and 6301-6465. Although submitting to inspection is voluntary, vehicle and commodities are not allowed to enter until released by an inspector.

Highlighting added by me to make sure you don't skip over it...

...and then there's the second clause in your emphasised sentence that says the vehicle cannot proceed until released by the inspector. Sounds to me like it's "Let me inspect you of you can turn around and go back the way you came".

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Navegator I can make the same argument with any number of things.

Lets pick illegal drugs.

Illegal drugs cost almost a 1/4 of a million lives in the world each year. It also costs over a 1/2 a TRILLION dollars in the US economy.

That being said; should be have warrantless searches at all state borders looking for drugs? After all, illegal drugs cost lives AND a lot of money and not just the cost of some fruit.

Should we do it at every county line? Neighborhoods? Should we just give police the power to just come into your home without any warrant if they think you have drugs? Maybe we should do away with that pesky 4 amendment?

After all, illegal drug use costs us a lot more money than Med Flys ever did and ever will.

Maybe the persons that get all huffy and puffy with police searching for drugs without warrants would like to pay some of the tax payers for the loss and the hospitals for trying to save the drug addict?

[Yosemite_Sam1]

am1958 wrote:
Navegator:

My issue isn't with the inspections but rather ridiculous statements such as "You gave up your right when you purchased a vehicle" which is patently untrue.

And when the reading comprehension challenged also lied because that statement, given in quotation mark to make it appear to have actually been said, is not true. It is also interpreted out of context.

"implied waiver", my actual statement, is far from "giving up rights."

Even without the lawyer brother, I have enough law units to know that constitutional rights are sacrosanct. But know too, that in situations of facilitation in the conduct of law enforcement or practicality, some specific requirements of the law, in this case the need for search warrant, can be waived as, again, a decided jurisprudence.

Ah, the recurring problem with simple-mindedness and the failure of educational system specifically the basics of reading comprehension, well, could be genetics.

[am1958]

Navegator:

My issue isn't with the inspections but rather ridiculous statements such as "You gave up your right when you purchased a vehicle" which is patently untrue.

[navegator]

It is not a question of the 4th amendment being violated by the agriculture inspectors, it is a question of how many millions of dollars in damage and erradication of a pest brought in from another state.

Some years ago someone imported by ignorance or intent a fruit fly to San Diego, it nearlly devastated the orange groves and the owners took a hit with fruit that could not be sold or eaten, then came the cost of trying to eradicate this pest it amounted to several millions, and it is still on going today.

It is very easy to forget if there are fruits in the galley or fridge in an RV, it happened to us coming back from Texas, we had 2 peaches left from El Paso, grown in California and purchased in El Paso, at the inspection station I answered I do not remember if we ate them all or not, the inspector asked if he could come aboard and look we both answered go ahead, the fruit was in a basket in a corner all forgoten, we were given the choise of eating the culprits or disposing off them, we chose to eat tnem, and we were on ower way.

Maybe the persons that get all huffy and puffy at an agriculture inspection would like to pay some of the growers for the loss and the State for the eradication programs instead of the tax payers?

navegator

[am1958]

It's absolutely amazing to me how you cannot discern the difference between a Law Enforcement Officer who operates under the Supreme Court's ruling requiring RAS to allow them to search a vehicle without a warrant - and yes, a trained sniffer dog alerting on the outside of your car gives them RAS - and an agricultural worker whose desire to search your vehicle is not under that same umbrella. The agricultural worker may ask to search and you can simply say no and drive off from whence you came. He has no power to search.

In order to put this to bed I give you this:-

What Legal Authority do your inspectors have to stop and check my vehicle?

The Department’s legal authority for conducting vehicle and commodity inspections lies in the California Food and Agricultural Code, specifically Sections 5341-5353 and 6301-6465. Although submitting to inspection is voluntary, vehicle and commodities are not allowed to enter until released by an inspector.

Highlighting added by me to make sure you don't skip over it...

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders_faq.html

So, the California Department of Food and Agriculture's own web site, (you know, the very people who run the inspection stations), is telling you you are wrong but somehow I get the feeling that won't sway you either...

[lakeside013104]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

lakeside013104 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.:C:)

SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside

Thanks! I can't really understand why anyone can't understand that very simple statement and would want to paint a paranoid worst-case scenario and "giving up rights" on the particular decided Supreme Court decision.

You can even Google automobile exception and it will give you the list of cases and on top the Supreme Court opinion.

My career choice required me to study and pass Constitutional Law, especially related to the 4th Amendment. The 'mobile conveyance' exception is exactly as you stated.

Another exception to the 4th Amendment that I found very interesting was the section related to the 'free air sniff' by a trained K9. Again this law was challenged and ended up with a Supreme court ruling. The short story is that walking a trained K9 around the outside of a mobile conveyance is perfectly legal and if the K9 alerts, the fun begins when the driver refuses to give consent for a vehicle search. Sorry pal, after a 'trained and certified' K9 alert to the exterior of your vehicle, your vehicle will be searched regardless of your protests.

Interesting read.

Lakeside

[Blazing_Zippers]

I was stopped for going just a "little" over the speed limit about a year ago. I even got a "driving award" in the process.
After the trooper identified himself, I promptly told him that I had a gun in the console. The trooper asked if I had a CCW and if the weapon was legal (he hadn't run my name yet). I said "YEP, but these aren't my pants." We both laughed, he scratched out a paper while I felt stupid about getting caught, and we both "went home safely."
See? Simple!
If anyone doesn't get the "these aren't my pants," watch Live PD or Cops.
Maybe if we just all got along instead of being wadded up, our lives, country, and world would be better.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

lakeside013104 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.:C:)

SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside

Thanks! I can't really understand why anyone can't understand that very simple statement and would want to paint a paranoid worst-case scenario and "giving up rights" on the particular decided Supreme Court decision.

You can even Google automobile exception and it will give you the list of cases and on top the Supreme Court opinion.

[lakeside013104]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.:C:)

SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside