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?

[Yosemite_Sam1]

mountainkowboy wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

mountainkowboy wrote:
I go between Or and CA all the time and go through the "AG" stops all the time. I have been asked a few times if they can "inspect" the inside of my TC for whatever, I just laugh at them and say no. They have no authority for such...in fact 90% of the time the Leo's don't have the authority, but people are intimidated by the request and submit to it, why I have no idea.

Know your rights and demand respect from ANYONE, or be a sheep and get trampled on.

I'm sorry if I found this incredulous. I don't think you'll even be asked, and you'll just be waived at the border if you have a Oregon license plate. That's within flying distance of any insect and don't need you car to be transported. These nearby states, up to WA have joint-coordinated pest control protocols.

Really? you've ridden with my wife and I driving in and out of CA over the last 10 years? I love the drivel of some people who choose there own "truths" over others facts. You can choose your "alternate" reality if you wish, but quit making statements about things that you don't have first hand knowledge of.

No, I would not drive to CA with your wife. And unlike you, I don't need the permission nor bring my wife to be able to go to California.

As to mine is bigger than yours contest you want to start. Mine is longer. I've been crossing CA, and passed ALL of it's borders for 17 years as called for by my professional responsibilities.

On the direct knowledge, that I admit. Mine is 2nd hand knowledge of a border inspector former neighbor as drinking buddy. And I cannot vouch for the accuracy as we are both half drunk, LOL.:S

[mountainkowboy]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

mountainkowboy wrote:
I go between Or and CA all the time and go through the "AG" stops all the time. I have been asked a few times if they can "inspect" the inside of my TC for whatever, I just laugh at them and say no. They have no authority for such...in fact 90% of the time the Leo's don't have the authority, but people are intimidated by the request and submit to it, why I have no idea.

Know your rights and demand respect from ANYONE, or be a sheep and get trampled on.

I'm sorry if I found this incredulous. I don't think you'll even be asked, and you'll just be waived at the border if you have a Oregon license plate. That's within flying distance of any insect and don't need you car to be transported. These nearby states, up to WA have joint-coordinated pest control protocols.

Really? you've ridden with my wife and I driving in and out of CA over the last 10 years? I love the drivel of some people who choose there own "truths" over others facts. You can choose your "alternate" reality if you wish, but quit making statements about things that you don't have first hand knowledge of.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

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

This inspector and the LEO are weak and have a hint that they will be walked over like a doormat by the RV owner.

He should have taken lessons from Jimmy Malone, that cop played by Sean Connery in The Untochables.

Not quite Jim Malone’s “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!” More like, you make my life miserable, I’ll return the favor – and more.

I imagine this is how Jim would have handled this.

Jim Malone: May I inspect your RV for fruits, insect and parasites, sir?

Aboy: No, unless you can show me a warrant and probable cause.

Jim Malone: I don’t need a warrant, this is not a search for evidence. This is an administrative inspection. My probable cause is that you passed and came from states with confirmed pests and parasite infestation.

Aboy: But I consider my RV my home.

Jim Malone: Yes, you can consider it a home or whatever you might want to call it, but the law classify it as vehicle of conveyance and ruled by Supreme Court to be covered by vehicle exemption not requiring search warrant for administrative inspection.

But you have an option to turn-around from where you came from if you don’t want an inspection.

Aboy: Why? I am an American citizen and have the right to travel whenever I want in any state.

Jim Malone: Yes, you have the right to travel, but your vehicles do not have the same rights and, again, I have the duty of administrative inspection over your vehicles before you are allowed to enter the state.

Aboy: Well, you don’t have the right of seizure of my personal properties.

Jim Malone: It’s not a seizure nor sequestration of your properties, the state has the authority of quarantine right at this station should you both decide to proceed to California without me honoring my duty to inspect the inside of your RV. I can see you have a phone so you can call an Uber should you decide to proceed and cross into the stateline?

Aboy: Okay, okay…

Jim Malone: Not so fast sir. I am an expert on parasite and noticed that your female companion has crabs infestation in her eyebrow and eye lashes, so I have to quarantine her too for total body disinfection.

And you should leave your number and contact address. If your female companion happens to have a Las Vegas, Nevada address and yours is Arizona, we have probable cause to suspect that you are engaging in cross-state human trafficking for prostitution which is prohibited by federal law and that prostitution is illegal in California.

This is a joke and no reason for the snowflakes and the paranoid to twist their underwear in a fit of rage.:B

[westernrvparkow]

JRscooby wrote:
This post likely will be deleted for political reason, but a short study of history. I understand the idea the few travelers should be willing to give up their privacy for the good of the ag industry.
A while back Snowden released proof the government was recording phone calls and reading e-mails. In the discussions behind that "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" was the stated policy of one political party. If you follow that idea, then somebody that says "No. You need a warrant to search my house/office/whatever" than any judge appointed/confirmed by that party might think "He doesn't want LEO in, must be hiding something." This could turn the "No!" into probable cause.

I personally like the idea that someone is watching my every move. That way, when I get the feeling my life is boring all I have to do is think about the poor sap that drew my name as a surveillance target.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Alan_Hepburn wrote:
You certainly have the right to refuse a search, but then they also have the right to tell you to turn around and go back the way you came...

Did you watch the video I posted before you wrote this?

Why, what did you see something that we don't at the end of the video? The inspector and the LEO was telling the a**hole couple to turn-around and go back to Arizona.

Do you think they got their way? The LEO even warned them.

LOL, aaaaaaa because there is a part 2 and part 3 to the video. There is even a followup where they called up inspector Duffey. I even went to the trouble of posting the links for people like you who have a hard time navigating around the computer.

The question is why do you call people that uphold their right a**holes?

I do think it's funny about the dryer lint. LOL Ya, I added the "dryer" part, but it's still funny! :B

PS: you might give this to your lawyer brother. LOL

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Alan_Hepburn wrote:
You certainly have the right to refuse a search, but then they also have the right to tell you to turn around and go back the way you came...

Did you watch the video I posted before you wrote this?

Why, what did you see something that we don't at the end of the video? The inspector and the LEO was telling the a**hole couple to turn-around and go back to Arizona.

Do you think they got their way? The LEO even warned them.

[am1958]

Err... the whole point of what I have been saying has been based on just that while you have been equating the two...

Strangely, you invoke no emotion in me... You are like lint or a bottle cap... *

* Name the movie without the use of google...

[Yosemite_Sam1]

am1958 wrote:

So, no. Refusal to permit a warrantless search does not equal probable cause. However, the officer way deem it so but when it comes to court any charges stemming from the illegal search should be dismissed by the court or upon appeal.

Seriously, you want to play lawyer now and speculate on the court decision when you don't even know the difference between "search warrant" (used to look for evidence of illegal activity or crime) and administrative inspection?

Your display and pretend-knowledge of law makes me weep -- well, laugh-out-loud mostly.

[am1958]

In short (and as summed up in a footnote), police cannot use someone's constitutionally-protected right to refuse a search as probable cause to justify a search. The ruling is reversed and remanded and the police are now in the same position they were before they performed the warrantless search: looking at someone they want to arrest but without the probable cause to do so. And now it's so much worse because the officer knows Barker was in possession of a controlled substance but can't do anything about it. With the evidence suppressed, the single possession charge resulting from this arrest no longer exists.

These rights weren't granted to citizens just so the government could use any exercise of them against those availing themselves of these protections. They were supposed to safeguard citizens against governmental overreach and abuse of its powers, but default mode seems to be that only the guilty assert their rights. This mindset is so perverse -- and so pervasive -- that it has to be beaten back one court decision at a time. Law enforcement officers treat assertions of rights as, at best, an annoyance and at worst, tacit admissions of guilt. To operate under such a twisted interpretation displays an almost incomprehensible level of privilege -- where government agents are owed whatever they request and any failure to cooperate is treated with suspicion.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150520/13504531067/court-reminds-police-that-refusing-search-isn...

So, no. Refusal to permit a warrantless search does not equal probable cause. However, the officer way deem it so but when it comes to court any charges stemming from the illegal search should be dismissed by the court or upon appeal.

[JRscooby]

This post likely will be deleted for political reason, but a short study of history. I understand the idea the few travelers should be willing to give up their privacy for the good of the ag industry.
A while back Snowden released proof the government was recording phone calls and reading e-mails. In the discussions behind that "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" was the stated policy of one political party. If you follow that idea, then somebody that says "No. You need a warrant to search my house/office/whatever" than any judge appointed/confirmed by that party might think "He doesn't want LEO in, must be hiding something." This could turn the "No!" into probable cause.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Alan_Hepburn wrote:
You certainly have the right to refuse a search, but then they also have the right to tell you to turn around and go back the way you came...

Did you watch the video I posted before you wrote this?

[am1958]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
All irrelevant, stay on topic!

Thank you

Goodnight

[Yosemite_Sam1]

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:
Actually, upon reflection, someone should close this thread before Sam does himself a critical injury...

The risk of injury is only to the brains. And it that regard, you are well safe.:B

Finally, your failure to address the question at hand while making a potentially accurate and thus funny comment demonstrates that you concede...

What's sad is that that it took a British citizen to explain to you your rights under American law. Don't feel bad, I rarely meet people that know their rights here which is unbelievably sad... I left my country to come to the freedom your Constitution and Bill of Rights afford you only to find that so few of you seem to care to maintain those freedoms.

What's happening in Virginia right now is a great example... If you really pay attention it's an argument for an Electoral College in every state.

[Edit] Oops, you edited your last post... Too late...[/Edit]

All irrelevant, stay on topic!

[am1958]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:
Actually, upon reflection, someone should close this thread before Sam does himself a critical injury...

The risk of injury is only to the brains. And it that regard, you are well safe.:B

Finally, your failure to address the question at hand while making a potentially accurate and thus funny comment demonstrates that you concede...

What's sad is that that it took a British citizen to explain to you your rights under American law. Don't feel bad, I rarely meet people that know their rights here which is unbelievably sad... I left my country to come to the freedom your Constitution and Bill of Rights afford you only to find that so few of you seem to care to maintain those freedoms.

What's happening in Virginia right now is a great example... If you really pay attention it's an argument for an Electoral College in every state.

[Edit] Oops, you edited your last post... Too late...[/Edit]

[Yosemite_Sam1]

am1958 wrote:
Actually, upon reflection, someone should close this thread before Sam does himself a critical injury...

The risk of injury is only to the brains. And it that regard, you are well safe.:B

I've answered your question. You might need your neighbor, however, to explain it to you to understand it.:R