Agricultural Checkpoint question

[Cali80]

Is the agricultural checkpoint, the one coming back from Las Vegas, used strictly for checking agriculture?
I am afraid that if I have a CA compliant firearm, the guards there might accuse me of having something illegal, even though it is legal.

I have never been searched there, nor do I know anybody who has, but I would like to know my rights in this matter.

Any info or experience/comments would be welcome.

[FortCourageArmory]

Since the Constitution and BOR have not been suspended, the agricultre checkpoint guards have to follow the same rules as LEOs everywhere else. They can't search your vehicle unless they can articulate probable cause. And you should NEVER consent to a search at all....ever....never. Nothing good can come of it.

[Glock22Fan]

Repeat after me:

"I have nothing illegal. I do not give my consent to a search."

Repeat this until either they go away or get a warrent.

[Cali80]

it seems that even if I do decline a search, they will find some BS PC reason for a search and get a warrant.
But I guess that is the only real option I have.

[11Z50]

I've been thru the Ag checkpoints coming from both NV and OR many times. All they have ever done is either wave me thru or ask if I had any fruit or ag products. Never any hassle.

[haodoken]

Is the agricultural checkpoint, the one coming back from Las Vegas, used strictly for checking agriculture?
I am afraid that if I have a CA compliant firearm, the guards there might accuse me of having something illegal, even though it is legal.

I have never been searched there, nor do I know anybody who has, but I would like to know my rights in this matter.

Any info or experience/comments would be welcome.

You should be okay, as long as you don't have your AR/AK in the front or back seats. Just keep it in the case and locked. The agricultural guys are only looking for that apple/banana/orange/etc you have in front seat of your car bringing in the med flys. I've never been asked to have my car searched for fruit.

[domokun]

The last time I came through the AG checkpoint on the way back from Reno, they just asked me "Where are you coming from?" and waved me through after I said "Reno".

[DedEye]

The thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=120977) right above yours has the same topic.

[Aldemar]

The last few years, They have checked the bilge on my Sea-Doos when returning from Lake Meade or Lake Havasu. They are looking for Zebra Mussels which are causing many problems in freshwater lakes. They use a flashlight to look in through the holes where the bilge plugs are. They don't remove the seats or ask me to.

Question: If they were to ask me to remove the seat and I allow it, am I "consenting" to a search of my tow vehicle as well?

Al

[tankerman]

During hunting season they will search your vehicle if you have been hunting out of state. They are looking for spinal and skull/brain matter. This is an effort to stop 'cronic wasting disease'.

I have been searched a couple of times. They don't care about your fire arms, just your dead animal parts

[ke6guj]

I know that the ferret crowd has issues with the Ag checkpoints and getting their pet ferrets confiscated. Its so bad that they have created pdf's with checkpoint bypasses for all the ways into CA.

[Glock22Fan]

During hunting season they will search your vehicle if you have been hunting out of state. They are looking for spinal and skull/brain matter. This is an effort to stop 'cronic wasting disease'.

I have been searched a couple of times. They don't care about your fire arms, just your dead animal parts

I'm sure you are right, but it doesn't always happen. I've been through there with a couple of ice boxes full of Utah venison, with a set of antlers sitting openly on top, and they didn't bat an eyelid, just waved me through.

[mike100]

You can by-pass the Barstow checkpoint by going down towards Laughlin and then hooking up to I-40 just west of the Needles checkpoint.

[Meplat]

The mission of the exterior quarantine branch is to intercept agricultural pests before the get into California and cause problems. To that end they purposely avoid being a pain in the *** on minor criminal matters. They look the other way on minor drug stuff and such. Most would not know an OLL from a wedding cake. They are "inspectors" not LEO's, they are not armed and do not have to meet the POST.

There is usually at least one highway patrolman assigned to each border station. They do not normally interact with the public and definatly do not work the traffic lanes. The CHP is there just in case someone does something stupid. If a Plant Quarantine Inspector (PQI) sees a body in your trunk he will not try to detain you, he wants any interaction between you and the law to happen as far away from him as possible. He will report it to the CHP. They wave 99.9% of the traffic through. They do randomly check trunks and RV's. Hint: If you have a sizable RV that probably has a fridge, is it likely that you have NO ag products in it? The wave through answers go something like this.

"Good afternoon, may I ask where you folks are coming from?''

"Reno."

"Do you have any fruits or vegetables on board?"

"Yes, we have some tomatoes and cucumbers in the fridge."

"Where did you get them?"

"Safeway, in sparks."

"Thank you, have a nice day."

Commercial produce is considered to have been inspected already. If you tell them you have produce out of grandma's back yard they may want to look at it to be sure it is not infested with an exotic pest, depending on where it came from.

You Do Not have to consent to a search, however they can then refuse to allow you entrance to California.

PQI searches are very superficial. Just the logical places you would expect to find food. They do not start with the idea that you are a smuggler, just that you may have something you don't know is dangerous. Most, if they see a gun will assume it is leagle and they don't care anyway. But I would not count on them not reporting something "exotic" looking to the CHP, PQI probably has it's share of boneheads.

I would not consent to a search of my RV if I had my simi-auto Mod-1919 set up on the kitchen table, unless I wanted to be trying to convince a clueless CHP that; "No, really, it's perfectly legal." I'd stow it somewhere away from the kitchen area.

I am not advising any specific action but, there are a lot of back roads into CA that do not have boarder stations.:rolleyes:

[M. Sage]

Hah, they seized some commercial produce from us when we were moving into this state. Must be the inspector was hungry...

If you have any produce aboard, they're taking it from you. Just hand it over...

[Cali80]

thnks for updates.
Just having an agricultural checkpoint in the middle of nowhere seems like a waste of time. You would think it is there for other reasons like looking for illegals and drug smugglers.

I laughed when they stopped me and then asked if I had produce.
Only in CA

[M. Sage]

I laughed when they stopped me and then asked if I had produce.
Only in CA

Strong farm lobby.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

It is my understanding that this program has been all but de-funded in the state budget for a few years now.

honestly- think back- when is the last time you were stopped at an Ag checkpoint? Ive gone through the one at Dorris several times and there is no one there.

do to an increase is invasive species threatening our ag industry,-you may see them pop up again soon
( if they pass the budget)

you can always call and ask them about it!

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/PHPPS/pe/ExteriorExclusion/BorderStationContactInfo.pdf

[elSquid]

It is my understanding that this program has been all but de-funded in the state budget for a few years now.

honestly- think back- when is the last time you were stopped at an Ag checkpoint? Ive gone through the one at Dorris several times and there is no one there.

I was stopped about a month ago at the one by Reno. When the inspector heard that I was coming back from Idaho he asked to search. At the time I was tired and didn't care, so I told him to go ahead. I popped the trunk, he looked around for a minute and that was that.

-- Michael

[Mr. Joshua]

Where's the one on the way back from LV? I don't remember one when I drove back from SHOT Show this year.

The workers at the check point on I-80 near Truckee are very low key. They just ask where you're coming from and if you have any produce. If you're that worried about it there's a number of backroads you can take to go around the check point that will add all of 10 minutes to your trip.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I was stopped about a month ago at the one by Reno. When the inspector heard that I was coming back from Idaho he asked to search. At the time I was tired and didn't care, so I told him to go ahead. I popped the trunk, he looked around for a minute and that was that.

-- Michael

ahh of course the one nearest me- good to know.

[Intimid8tor]

It is my understanding that this program has been all but de-funded in the state budget for a few years now.

honestly- think back- when is the last time you were stopped at an Ag checkpoint? Ive gone through the one at Dorris several times and there is no one there.

do to an increase is invasive species threatening our ag industry,-you may see them pop up again soon
( if they pass the budget)

you can always call and ask them about it!

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/PHPPS/pe/ExteriorExclusion/BorderStationContactInfo.pdf

It may have been defunded, but over the last two years they build a new one in Truckee where the scales are.

[Decoligny]

A new guy in my unit just transfered in about 2 months ago. I briefed him on some of the California gun laws, and he then told me that while going through the Ag checkpoint, the guard say his gun in a belt holster and asked if it was loaded. He told the guard "Of course it's loaded" not knowing the CA laws. The guard told him it was illegal to carry a loaded gun in the car and that he should pull off to the side of the road and unload it immediately before he got himself arrested. That was it. He unloaded and was on his way.

I told him that he should NEVER enter a state with a firearm unless he knew that states gun laws backwards and forwards. Good way to get an accidental felony arrest if you aren't careful.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

It may have been defunded, but over the last two years they build a new one in Truckee where the scales are.

well thats what I get- I make an absolute statement and all of a sudden everyone is hanging out at border stations!

I vow to find the budget line item

[Meplat]

Hah, they seized some commercial produce from us when we were moving into this state. Must be the inspector was hungry...

If you have any produce aboard, they're taking it from you. Just hand it over...

Not normally true. You may have been coming from a location that was high risk at the time.

On the hungry part. It is not generally known by the public but PQI's are fired on the spot if caught eating any confiscated produce. It is generally fairly hard to fire a state employee but this is an exception. It is made known to every new PQI that eating confiscated food is an immediate dismissal.

Hell of a waist of good fruit.;)

[Intimid8tor]

well thats what I get- I make an absolute statement and all of a sudden everyone is hanging out at border stations!

I vow to find the budget line item

Sorry to do that to you. They probably called it something else to get it approved.

[E Pluribus Unum]

You Do Not have to consent to a search, however they can then refuse to allow you entrance to California

I don't see how a non-leo can deny you entry... especially considering the AG checkpoint is 20+ miles inside he California border.

[hoffmang]

I don't see how a non-leo can deny you entry... especially considering the AG checkpoint is 20+ miles inside he California border.

Denying you entry would be a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

[E Pluribus Unum]

Denying you entry would be a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

Yup.... exactly.

Obviously barring the geography of it.

Due to the fact that there are no turn offs to avoid the checkpoint, them stopping your car is unconstitutional in itself; they cannot really say it is consensual at that point.

[Moonclip]

Are they checking for illegals as well as fruit? I noticed when traveling with white people I get less scrutiny then when I go thru the checkpoint with someone that looks Mexican and has poor English skills.

I've only really been thru the one by the Salton Sea.

edit: I assume the Salton Sea area checkpoint is actually more intended to catch illegals than fruit? I have been thru the fruit ones only a few times. The Salton Sea one seems more like the San Clemente BP checkpoint then I assume.

[randy]

I got stopped last week entering Bishop. When they ask where I'm coming from I always tell them someplace I've been at sometime. It's none of their business and I don't want to waste my time with them.

[hitman13]

Are they checking for illegals as well as fruit? I noticed when traveling with white people I get less scrutiny then when I go thru the checkpoint with someone that looks Mexican and has poor English skills.

I've only really been thru the one by the Salton Sea.

edit: I assume the Salton Sea area checkpoint is actually more intended to catch illegals than fruit? I have been thru the fruit ones only a few times. The Salton Sea one seems more like the San Clemente BP checkpoint then I assume.
The one on the 86 is a BP checkpoint, not an Ag checkpoint..

[Ford8N]

The thing about Ag check points is the infrastructure is now in place, easy to convert to a gun check point...or ammo. :TFH::hide:;)

[ke6guj]

Due to the fact that there are no turn offs to avoid the checkpoint, them stopping your car is unconstitutional in itself; they cannot really say it is consensual at that point.Does it have to be an actual posted turn off to be constitutional?

http://www.ferretsanon.com/avoidthecheckpoints.html

[hoffmang]

The thing about Ag check points is the infrastructure is now in place, easy to convert to a gun check point...or ammo. :TFH::hide:;)

There is no constitutional right to posses and carry fruit.

-Gene

[E Pluribus Unum]

Does it have to be an actual posted turn off to be constitutional?

http://www.ferretsanon.com/avoidthecheckpoints.html



This post has a reference to the rules that are required in California.


The following is a motion to suppress testimony obtained by a DUI checkpoint in California. It lists many of the relevant cases and requirements set forth in order to make LEO checkpoints legal.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Eric Whitaker - Cheap DUI Lawyer The following is a sample of a motion to suppress. At least the meat and potatoes. I have lots of samples. Tell me your situation and I'll explain the motion.

FACTS

The officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle (at a dui checkpoint) and requested he perform a series of field sobriety tests. Based upon the performance of these tests, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence.

ARGUMENT

In Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987), 43 Cal.3d 1321, the California Supreme Court considered whether sobriety checkpoints were constitutional. The Supreme Court held that sobriety checkpoint detentions are not governed by the standard set forth in In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, "requiring an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing", and thus there does not need to be a reasonable suspicion that the detained drivers have or may be involved in criminal activity. Instead, the reasonableness of the detention is determined by balancing the societal need against the intrusion involved. Thus, where the societal interest being protected is great and the intrusion is minimal, then the detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Ingersoll, supra, explained that the primary purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is not to detect evidence of crime or arrest drunk drivers but to "promote public safety by deterring intoxicated persons from driving on the public streets and highways." (Id. at p. 1328).
However, the power to randomly detain citizens is limited. A Court must weigh the gravity of the governmental interest or public concern served, and the degree to which the program advances that concern, against the intrusiveness of the interference with individual liberty. (Id. at p. 1321). When balancing the societal needs against the intrusion of a number of law abiding citizens, the Ingersoll court identified eight factors to "provide functional guidelines for minimizing the intrusiveness of the sobriety checkpoint stop." (supra, at p. 1341). These factors are: (1) decision making at the supervisory level; (2) limits on discretion of field officers as to who is to be stopped; (3) maintenance of safety conditions; (4) reasonable location of the checkpoint; (5) a reasonable time and duration of the checkpoint; (6) indicia of the official nature of the roadblock; (7) the length and nature of the detention; and (8) advance publicity regarding each checkpoint. (supra, at pp. 1341-47).

Subsequently, in People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, the California Supreme Court revisited the sobriety checkpoint issue. In Banks, the Supreme Court considered whether advance publicity, which is one of the Ingersoll guidelines, was a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of a sobriety checkpoint. In addressing the issue, the court again emphasized that " 'federal constitutional principles require a showing of either the officer's reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring or, as an alternative, that the seizure is "carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers." [Citations.]' " (Banks, supra, at p. 936 emphasis added). The Court concluded “that the operation of a sobriety checkpoint conducted in the absence of advance publicity, but otherwise in conformance with the guidelines we established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1321, 241 Cal.Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299, does not result in an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Banks, supra at p. 949). “As Ingersoll makes clear, sobriety checkpoints are constitutional so long as certain guidelines are followed. The eight factors identified in Ingersoll provide "functional guidelines" to assess the intrusiveness of a checkpoint”. (Roelfsema v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 871, 877, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 817, 820).

In the case at bench, pursuant to Ingersol and Banks, it is the People’s burden to justify
the sobriety checkpoint pursuant to neutral and explicit guidelines. For example, the People must show advance publicity. Assuming that cannot be proven, there are seven other guidelines that must still be proven to justify the detention in the case at bench, and specifically, there are four areas that prove problematic for the People.

Were there limits on discretion of field officers? “[M]otorists should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver should be employed.” (Ingersoll at 1342).
Second, whether the roadblock was in a reasonable location. “The location of checkpoints should be determined by policy-making officials rather than by officers in the field. The sites chosen should be those which will be most effective in achieving the governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and/or arrests.” (Ingersoll at p.1342).

Was there indicia of the official nature of the roadblock? “Those aspects of a sobriety roadblock which evidence its official nature are critical in minimizing its intrusiveness. The roadblock should be established with high visibility, including warning signs, flashing lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles and the presence of uniformed officers.
(Ingersoll at p. 1321).

Was the roadblock reasonable in time and duration? The Supreme Court observed that the average time each motorist was detained was "critical" to minimizing the intrusiveness of the stop and justifying it as a proper administrative detention. ( Ingersoll at p. 1346) “As a general proposition it seems to us entirely reasonable to require that a visitor not be kept waiting for search to commence more than 10 minutes from the time his or her vehicle is randomly selected to be searched.” Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 529).

In the case at bench, these specific areas will need to be proven reasonable to justify the initial detention of the defendant.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons and authority, it is respectfully requested that the defendant’s motion to suppress be granted.

[Meplat]

They have authority to enforce the ag code. And they WILL turn you around if you refuse. If you give them the freeway salute and just keep going anyway they will sick the CHP on you, and they DO have guns and badges.

Just take red rock road.:rolleyes:




I don't see how a non-leo can deny you entry... especially considering the AG checkpoint is 20+ miles inside he California border.

[M. Sage]

They have authority to enforce the ag code. And they WILL turn you around if you refuse. If you give them the freeway salute and just keep going anyway they will sick the CHP on you, and they DO have guns and badges.

Just take red rock road.:rolleyes:

And CHP is going to do... what, exactly? Refusing to submit to a consensual search isn't probable cause to search.

I do not see any way that a fruit inspector could bar you from entering the state.

Oh, and we were moving here from Michigan.. not exactly "high risk" for medflies, but I'll argue that these stations are not about medflies.

[Meplat]

All ag checkpoints have warning signs before you get to them. Search is consensual because they will not search without your permission. They will just turn you around.


Does it have to be an actual posted turn off to be constitutional?

http://www.ferretsanon.com/avoidthecheckpoints.html

[E Pluribus Unum]

They will just turn you around.

They do not have the authority to turn you around.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

5343.5. At any inspection station maintained at or near the
California border by the director pursuant to Section 5341, the
following sign shall be conspicuously posted in block letters not
less than four inches in height:
"NOTICE: IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, THE FEDERAL GUN
CONTROL ACT MAY PROHIBIT YOU FROM BRINGING WITH YOU INTO THIS STATE
FIREARMS THAT YOU ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU ARE A NEW CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, STATE LAW
REGULATES YOUR BRINGING INTO CALIFORNIA HANDGUNS AND OTHER DESIGNATED
FIREARMS AND MANDATES THAT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES BE FOLLOWED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
BRINGING FIREARMS INTO CALIFORNIA OR TRANSFERRING FIREARMS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OR A LOCAL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY."



5344. (a) It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to fail to
stop the vehicle at an inspection station or to willfully avoid an
inspection station. It is also unlawful for the operator to fail to
stop either upon demand of a clearly identified plant quarantine
officer or upon demand of an officer of the California Highway
Patrol, when the officer orders the operator to stop for the purpose
of determining whether any quarantine which is established pursuant
to any provision of this division is being violated.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 5309, a violation of this section is a
misdemeanor and grounds for the vehicle to be stopped for
inspection.



5345. It is unlawful for any person to operate upon any highway in
this state any vehicle which, in violation of Section 5344, was not
stopped as required by that section, if the person who is operating
such vehicle knows of such violation of Section 5344. The violation
of this section continues unless and until one of the following
occurs:
(a) A period of 24 hours has elapsed following the violation of
Section 5344.
(b) The operator who violated Section 5344 has been apprehended
and the vehicle which is involved has been inspected and released
from quarantine by any authorized state plant quarantine officer. An
operator who is so apprehended does not violate this section by
reason of operating the vehicle en route to the closest inspection
station immediately following his apprehension for violation of
Section 5344, nor does any other person, who operates the vehicle for
such purpose, violate this section.

5346. (a) It is unlawful for any person to conceal any plant from
any plant quarantine officer or to fail to present it or any
quarantined article for inspection at the request of such officer.
(b) It is unlawful to move into California any outdoor household
article from a federally regulated gypsy moth area unless accompanied
by certification that the article has been inspected and does not
contain gypsy moth egg masses. The director may adopt regulations to
specify the type of certification and inspection required as
necessary to carry out this section.



5348. Plant quarantine officers, and officers of the California
Highway Patrol, are authorized to cite persons for any violation of
this article.

[E Pluribus Unum]

5343.5. At any inspection station maintained at or near the
California border by the director pursuant to Section 5341, the
following sign shall be conspicuously posted in block letters not
less than four inches in height:
"NOTICE: IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, THE FEDERAL GUN
CONTROL ACT MAY PROHIBIT YOU FROM BRINGING WITH YOU INTO THIS STATE
FIREARMS THAT YOU ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU ARE A NEW CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, STATE LAW
REGULATES YOUR BRINGING INTO CALIFORNIA HANDGUNS AND OTHER DESIGNATED
FIREARMS AND MANDATES THAT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES BE FOLLOWED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
BRINGING FIREARMS INTO CALIFORNIA OR TRANSFERRING FIREARMS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OR A LOCAL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY."



5344. (a) It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to fail to
stop the vehicle at an inspection station or to willfully avoid an
inspection station. It is also unlawful for the operator to fail to
stop either upon demand of a clearly identified plant quarantine
officer or upon demand of an officer of the California Highway
Patrol, when the officer orders the operator to stop for the purpose
of determining whether any quarantine which is established pursuant
to any provision of this division is being violated.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 5309, a violation of this section is a
misdemeanor and grounds for the vehicle to be stopped for
inspection.



5345. It is unlawful for any person to operate upon any highway in
this state any vehicle which, in violation of Section 5344, was not
stopped as required by that section, if the person who is operating
such vehicle knows of such violation of Section 5344. The violation
of this section continues unless and until one of the following
occurs:
(a) A period of 24 hours has elapsed following the violation of
Section 5344.
(b) The operator who violated Section 5344 has been apprehended
and the vehicle which is involved has been inspected and released
from quarantine by any authorized state plant quarantine officer. An
operator who is so apprehended does not violate this section by
reason of operating the vehicle en route to the closest inspection
station immediately following his apprehension for violation of
Section 5344, nor does any other person, who operates the vehicle for
such purpose, violate this section.

5346. (a) It is unlawful for any person to conceal any plant from
any plant quarantine officer or to fail to present it or any
quarantined article for inspection at the request of such officer.
(b) It is unlawful to move into California any outdoor household
article from a federally regulated gypsy moth area unless accompanied
by certification that the article has been inspected and does not
contain gypsy moth egg masses. The director may adopt regulations to
specify the type of certification and inspection required as
necessary to carry out this section.



5348. Plant quarantine officers, and officers of the California
Highway Patrol, are authorized to cite persons for any violation of
this article.

Ok.... and???


Where does it say you are required to submit to a search and failure to do so allows them to "turn you away"?

All it says is that you have to stop and answer their questions regarding plants. It does not say you have to allow a search. Nor does it say they can "turn you away".

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Ok.... and???


Where does it say you are required to submit to a search and failure to do so allows them to "turn you away"?

All it says is that you have to stop and answer their questions regarding plants. It does not say you have to allow a search. Nor does it say they can "turn you away".


Was I talking to you?

[Meplat]

So, you are saying that the constitution and the 14Th give you the right to haul a load of African Clawed Frogs into California. And the 4th gives you the right to tell the state to go pound sand if they want to check to make sure you are not?

You seem to be using first and second amendment standards of scrutiny to protect a "right" that is not enumerated.

Tell you guys what. You just go ahead and make asses of yourselves fighting a useless battle with the PQI's. You might even win, if you throw enough money at it. But sorry, to me it's not a hill worth fighting for let alone dieing on. I'm just telling you what the object and policies are, I'm not saying they are right. It could be just as bogus as UOC. I am not now, nor have I ever been a PQI, but I know a lot of folks who have, and I know what they are about. I know with the way government has been going the last few decades it is easy to see a nazi behind every uniform, but trust me, these folks are harmless.

If you really want to find out what would happen if you forced the issue, let me know and within a couple days I can probably get you the "WRONG" answers that will get you inspected. Then tell them to pound sand and drive through and see what happens. If you make sure you are squeaky clean in all regards even if the CHP pulls you over what is the worst that can happen? Even if Gene is wrong you are probably looking at an infraction at most. The PQI isn't a peace officer, just be sure you don't clip him with your mirror on the way out or make any moves that could endanger anyone with your vehicle and pull over immediately when the CHP throws the light on you.

This is actually sounding like it might be fun! I mean, they get really, really annoyed when you challenge them on guns, But the ag code, how serious can that be? Still not ready to put my own balls on the block though.








Denying you entry would be a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

[IGOTDIRT4U]

So, you are saying that the constitution and the 14Th give you the right to haul a load of African Clawed Frogs into California. And the 4th gives you the right to tell the state to go pound sand if they want to check to make sure you are not?

You seem to be using first and second amendment standards of scrutiny to protect a "right" that is not enumerated.

Tell you guys what. You just go ahead and make asses of yourselves fighting a useless battle with the PQI's. You might even win, if you throw enough money at it. But sorry, to me it's not a hill worth fighting for let alone dieing on. I'm just telling you what the object and policies are, I'm not saying they are right. It could be just as bogus as UOC. I am not now, nor have I ever been a PQI, but I know a lot of folks who have, and I know what they are about. I know with the way government has been going the last few decades it is easy to see a nazi behind every uniform, but trust me, these folks are harmless.

If you really want to find out what would happen if you forced the issue, let me know and within a couple days I can probably get you the "WRONG" answers that will get you inspected. Then tell them to pound sand and drive through and see what happens. If you make sure you are squeaky clean in all regards even if the CHP pulls you over what is the worst that can happen? Even if Gene is wrong you are probably looking at an infraction at most. The PQI isn't a peace officer, just be sure you don't clip him with your mirror on the way out or make any moves that could endanger anyone with your vehicle and pull over immediately when the CHP throws the light on you.
This is actually sounding like it might be fun! I mean, they get really, really annoyed when you challenge them on guns, But the ag code, how serious can that be? Still not ready to put my own balls on the block though.

It's a misdemeanor, and the "PQI" do have the power to cite you.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

And inspect. You can call it an illegal search, if you want.

"5341. To prevent the introduction into, or the spread within this
state, of pests, the director shall maintain at such places within
this state as he deems necessary plant quarantine inspection stations
for the purpose of inspecting all conveyances which might carry
plants or other things which are, or are liable to be, infested or
infected with any pest."

[E Pluribus Unum]

It's a misdemeanor, and the "PQI" do have the power to cite you.

That is a redundant statement; as a misdemeanor, any private citizen has the right to "cite" you.

They must have probable cause. If they ask to search your vehicle and you say NO, that is not Probable Cause. The mere possession of a refrigerator is not PC.

They are powerless to affect any arrest unless you incriminate yourself; that goes for CHP officers as well.

[Meplat]

Gypsy Moth. And they are about pests. If they are covertly being used for anything else, nobody, and I mean nobody in the Ag department knows about it. It's totally covert.


And CHP is going to do... what, exactly? Refusing to submit to a consensual search isn't probable cause to search.

I do not see any way that a fruit inspector could bar you from entering the state.

Oh, and we were moving here from Michigan.. not exactly "high risk" for medflies, but I'll argue that these stations are not about medflies.

[E. Fudd]

The one out of Vegas is located westbound I-15 @ Yermo, just east of Barstow.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?city=yermo&state=CA&zip=92398&country=us&zoom=5

Last Vegas SHOT, I don't remember anyone even being there....

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Quit cherry picking your arguments and you will find less redundancy.

[Meplat]

It's a misdemeanor, and the "PQI" do have the power to cite you.

My bad on the infraction/misdemeanor thing. But I never said they could not cite, just that they are not peace officers. Hell, I can cite you under the Ag code but I'm not a peace officer. BTW, I can validate your deer tags also.

[Blackwater OPS]

I know of a person who was stopped bringing many firearm related items into CA at an inspection point, he was not arrested but simply told to leave the items out of state. Those check points are not set up to process arrests, they would rather have you turn back. That said, they did ask to see his guns when they saw the safes...

[Meplat]

ME?:eek:


Quit cherry picking your arguments and you will find less redundancy.

[Meplat]

WOW! never heared fo that before?

That said, they did ask to see his guns when they saw the safes...

[Blackwater OPS]

WOW! never heared fo that before?

Maybe they were just curious?

[IGOTDIRT4U]

ME?:eek:

No. You're good.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

I know of a person who was stopped bringing many firearm related items into CA at an inspection point, he was not arrested but simply told to leave the items out of state. Those check points are not set up to process arrests, they would rather have you turn back. That said, they did ask to see his guns when they saw the safes...

That does get interesting because part of the Code I posted did include that there is a duty to post signs about that very thing (CA gun laws) but I don't see where the AG inspection station does anything more about that in terms of it's duties. Odd. Maybe they hope the CHP picks up the ball from there? I know I almost always see a CHP cruiser near border and AG checkpoints, and many of both have weigh stations, too. Guess they can defer it to the CHP at that checkpoint if they come across anything suspicious.

[Meplat]

Are you sure it was PQI and not border patrol?


Maybe they were just curious?

[hoffmang]

Enough speculation. I called Truckee and asked what would happen to someone who failed to stop.

At first they tried to say they where police officers and it was failure to stop. I dug into that a bit and the woman realized that I knew something of the topic, so they clearly are not police officers. She said that what would actually happen would be that they would take your license plate and relay it to CHP. I asked what CHP would then cite you for. She handed to phone to supervisor and he said that there was some code in the Food and Agriculture Code that required you to stop.

I'm still searching for that. This is smelling like there is nothing they can cite you with that will stick. I'll probably give CHP Truckee a ring in a few if I can't find the code section.

-Gene

[E Pluribus Unum]

Enough speculation. I called Truckee and asked what would happen to someone who failed to stop.

At first they tried to say they where police officers and it was failure to stop. I dug into that a bit and the woman realized that I knew something of the topic, so they clearly are not police officers. She said that what would actually happen would be that they would take your license plate and relay it to CHP. I asked what CHP would then cite you for. She handed to phone to supervisor and he said that there was some code in the Food and Agriculture Code that required you to stop.

I'm still searching for that. This is smelling like there is nothing they can cite you with that will stick. I'll probably give CHP Truckee a ring in a few if I can't find the code section.

-Gene


Someone didn't read the whole post... :)


There is still nothing in there that gives them the ability to search. It seems you do have to stop, but nothing compels you to answer their questions. It is only a misdemeanor to hide plants from them, but they would have a hard time proving that without PC to search.


5343.5. At any inspection station maintained at or near the
California border by the director pursuant to Section 5341, the
following sign shall be conspicuously posted in block letters not
less than four inches in height:
"NOTICE: IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, THE FEDERAL GUN
CONTROL ACT MAY PROHIBIT YOU FROM BRINGING WITH YOU INTO THIS STATE
FIREARMS THAT YOU ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU ARE A NEW CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, STATE LAW
REGULATES YOUR BRINGING INTO CALIFORNIA HANDGUNS AND OTHER DESIGNATED
FIREARMS AND MANDATES THAT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES BE FOLLOWED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
BRINGING FIREARMS INTO CALIFORNIA OR TRANSFERRING FIREARMS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OR A LOCAL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY."



5344. (a) It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to fail to
stop the vehicle at an inspection station or to willfully avoid an
inspection station. It is also unlawful for the operator to fail to
stop either upon demand of a clearly identified plant quarantine
officer or upon demand of an officer of the California Highway
Patrol, when the officer orders the operator to stop for the purpose
of determining whether any quarantine which is established pursuant
to any provision of this division is being violated.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 5309, a violation of this section is a
misdemeanor and grounds for the vehicle to be stopped for
inspection.



5345. It is unlawful for any person to operate upon any highway in
this state any vehicle which, in violation of Section 5344, was not
stopped as required by that section, if the person who is operating
such vehicle knows of such violation of Section 5344. The violation
of this section continues unless and until one of the following
occurs:
(a) A period of 24 hours has elapsed following the violation of
Section 5344.
(b) The operator who violated Section 5344 has been apprehended
and the vehicle which is involved has been inspected and released
from quarantine by any authorized state plant quarantine officer. An
operator who is so apprehended does not violate this section by
reason of operating the vehicle en route to the closest inspection
station immediately following his apprehension for violation of
Section 5344, nor does any other person, who operates the vehicle for
such purpose, violate this section.

5346. (a) It is unlawful for any person to conceal any plant from
any plant quarantine officer or to fail to present it or any
quarantined article for inspection at the request of such officer.
(b) It is unlawful to move into California any outdoor household
article from a federally regulated gypsy moth area unless accompanied
by certification that the article has been inspected and does not
contain gypsy moth egg masses. The director may adopt regulations to
specify the type of certification and inspection required as
necessary to carry out this section.



5348. Plant quarantine officers, and officers of the California
Highway Patrol, are authorized to cite persons for any violation of
this article.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Gene, it seems to me that 5344 and 5345 allow the stops to be made, and the power of the PQI officer to cite for the misdemeanor is given in 5348. In fact, 5345 allows for an inspection of the operator who violated Section 5344 after he has been apprehended. The vehicle which is involved will be inspected and released from quarantine by any authorized state plant quarantine officer.

My other resource to check is the actual vehicle code. There might be something there that allows the PQI and/or CHP to cite you for failure to stop. Seems to me that I once read that officers given certain powers of enforcement, if on a public roadway, are given certain additional powers. I'll search codes. It's been awhile since I worked a MV case.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

EPU, I think only 5344 (b) might give them that right. But a condition is attached to that. I guess it comes down to what is an inspection, and the right to do it, over the right to a search. Vehicle safety inspections are upheld as not an intrusive search due to public safety issues. Since millions of dollars of agriculture could be at stake by someone bringing in a plant problem, the greater good fo the public may play into this.

[hoffmang]

Yep, its the 5341 et. al. sections:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fac/5341-5353.html

Still not clear that it is constitutional however. It's not a violation of P&I *I think* because its been specifically delegated by Congress, but it still may be a Fourth Amendment violation. It is certainly a seizure and probably an unreasonable one at that. Private passenger vehicles don't have a "shipment" in them in the normal case.

-Gene

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Yep, its the 5341 et. al. sections:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fac/5341-5353.html

Still not clear that it is constitutional however. It's not a violation of P&I *I think* because its been specifically delegated by Congress, but it still may be a Fourth Amendment violation. It is certainly a seizure and probably an unreasonable one at that. Private passenger vehicles don't have a "shipment" in them in the normal case.

-Gene

I think your answer is in 5301 and 5302 (also, penalties established per 5309), and in knowing the MVC's are exceptions to many expectations. It appears "quarantine" and "inspection" are the words to detach the event from an unlawful detainment and/or search.

[CSACANNONEER]

The last time I went through the Truckee checkpoint, the inspector asked me where I was coming from. I said, "Boca (it's a lake a couple of miles away) but, if I was smuggling fruit, I'd have driven the back way to Truckee." He laughed and waved me through. BTW, there is a back way to Truckee that's only a couple miles longer but, it's a 2wd accessable dirt road that will get your car/truck very dusty.

[hoffmang]

Someone didn't read the whole post... :)


Guilty as charged BTW.

-Gene

[fairfaxjim]

The new Truckee Ag Inspection station is co-located with, and was built at the same time as the new truck weigh/inspection station. Don't know who funded what, but it appeared to be a single project/contract.

I have gone through that one many times, and most of the others more that once, and have never experienced any BS from them. They often do nothing more than wave you through. If I am pulling a trailer (either RV or utility) they seem to ALWAYS stop and question me "what's in the trailer" (Answer, illegal Canadians!" ), and the usual "where you comming from, got any fruit/veggies?" While I don't care much for any form of government inspection, I really don't think there is much to fear from some guys looking for fruit with bugs on it. Stupid Joe/Jane citizen with their itchy 911 cell phone finger is more of a menace if you ask me.

I do love going through there in the winter because they wear those way cool Russian looking hats with the ear flaps. Reminds me of a movie Russian border check point. I always say "Thank you comrade!" and salute as I drive through, just can't help myself.

[GaryPowersLives]

The new Truckee Ag Inspection station is co-located with, and was built at the same time as the new truck weigh/inspection station. Don't know who funded what, but it appeared to be a single project/contract.

I have gone through that one many times, and most of the others more that once, and have never experienced any BS from them. They often do nothing more than wave you through. If I am pulling a trailer (either RV or utility) they seem to ALWAYS stop and question me "what's in the trailer" (Answer, illegal Canadians!" ), and the usual "where you comming from, got any fruit/veggies?" While I don't care much for any form of government inspection, I really don't think there is much to fear from some guys looking for fruit with bugs on it. Stupid Joe/Jane citizen with their itchy 911 cell phone finger is more of a menace if you ask me.

I do love going through there in the winter because they wear those way cool Russian looking hats with the ear flaps. Reminds me of a movie Russian border check point. I always say "Thank you comrade!" and salute as I drive through, just can't help myself.

LOL, I'll have to remember that last part next time through!

[Ironchef]

when the officer orders the operator to stop for the purpose
of determining whether any quarantine which is established pursuant
to any provision of this division is being violated.

In the above quoted section, this sentence seems to be the only language that surrounds searching or investigating. It doesn't imply a search of person or vehicle or just a simple questioning to determine if a search is necessary. I would guess if the verbal questioning gives them suspicion, then they'd have the right to proceed to further determine if you're violating that law by searching your vehicle/trailer, etc. Just a guess. Probably along the lines of a traffic stop where you've given enough PC to be searched. OF course, what could you possibly say in your interview to give them a hint that you might have fruit or veges? "Uh, no sir *spits chunk of apple out of mouth*, I have no fruits or vegetables here!"

[M. Sage]

It's good to know that they can't bar me from returning to the state when I refuse to allow them to search.

.. and gypsy moths don't really travel in produce, AFAIK. We never had any trouble with them in the family orchards, either.

I know of a person who was stopped bringing many firearm related items into CA at an inspection point, he was not arrested but simply told to leave the items out of state. Those check points are not set up to process arrests, they would rather have you turn back. That said, they did ask to see his guns when they saw the safes...

I wonder if it's the same person I know...

[Meplat]

No, but their egg masses are often attached to outdoor equipment, yard furniture, and the outside of RV's. Apple Maggot is also indigenous to your area of origin. Don't make me get out the manual.:p:;)


[QUOTE=M. Sage;1533826]

.. and gypsy moths don't really travel in produce,QUOTE]

[Meplat]

Did she give you the code section? The shift supervisor at any border station should know that, or at least what part of the book to go to to be sure she got the section right. External quarantine branch has been going down hill for years but I didn't know it was that bad.



She handed to phone to supervisor and he said that there was some code in the Food and Agriculture Code that required you to stop.



-Gene

[Meplat]

Would it not follow that they would be authorized to "inspect" only for a specific thing or things? If so what would be the status of any other thing observed. I doubt it could be used for evidence but might it not even be protected information that the observer cannot divulge? What if you allow the inspection under protest, would that change the status of anything found. What if you say, "I will consent to an inspection for agricultural pests but I do not consent to a search for anything else. Interesting.:rolleyes:



I think your answer is in 5301 and 5302 (also, penalties established per 5309), and in knowing the MVC's are exceptions to many expectations. It appears "quarantine" and "inspection" are the words to detach the event from an unlawful detainment and/or search.

[hoffmang]

Did she give you the code section? The shift supervisor at any border station should know that, or at least what part of the book to go to to be sure she got the section right. External quarantine branch has been going down hill for years but I didn't know it was that bad.

It's that bad. No one new other than "in the Food and Agriculture" section.

-Gene

[what2be]

It is my understanding that this program has been all but de-funded in the state budget for a few years now.

honestly- think back- when is the last time you were stopped at an Ag checkpoint? Ive gone through the one at Dorris several times and there is no one there.

do to an increase is invasive species threatening our ag industry,-you may see them pop up again soon
( if they pass the budget)

you can always call and ask them about it!

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/PHPPS/pe/ExteriorExclusion/BorderStationContactInfo.pdf

Obviously you didnt see my post in the 2admedment forum, where I was serached by a ag inspector coming from vegas a few months ago.

[M. Sage]

Would it not follow that they would be authorized to "inspect" only for a specific thing or things? If so what would be the status of any other thing observed. I doubt it could be used for evidence but might it not even be protected information that the observer cannot divulge? What if you allow the inspection under protest, would that change the status of anything found. What if you say, "I will consent to an inspection for agricultural pests but I do not consent to a search for anything else. Interesting.:rolleyes:

No, you can't consent to a "partial" search. If you say yes, you're consenting to anything they might stumble upon during their search.

Means the answer is "no, you can't search". :p

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Obviously you didnt see my post in the 2admedment forum, where I was serached by a ag inspector coming from vegas a few months ago.

I missed it-

From what I can tell the program was defunded or downsized in the 2006 budget, the current budget is small and the proposed budget ( that may or may not take effect this week) has a substantial increase to provide fulltime inspectors at all 16 checkpoints and funding to hire scores of new personnel.

I would appear the new funding is coming out of the motor vehicle account.

I'm had trouble finding how it was funded historically or from what account -so Im going to just say this-

My bad!

[Chris M]

This past weekend I got stopped at the I-40 checkpoint, driving my mother from Austin, TX to San Jose. It was late at night, I was tired, I don't even remember if the lady asked if we had any fruit - she just started shining her light in the back of the van, and spotted a small case of Clementines. She asked where we got them. I said "Whole Foods". She confiscated them and told me "I need you to unlock the rear of the vehicle." She then proceeded to dig through the cooler and move our stuff around. She spotted some apples, but let us keep them as they were grown in washington.

I hadn't driven into CA from out of state for about 10 years, and had completely forgot about the Agricultural Checkpoints.

[Glock22Fan]

Wow, necro thread!

I guess seeing possible contraband in open view gave her probable cause for a search.

[JDay]

http://www.freewebs.com/cortlesteeze/pix/ThreadNecro.jpg

[Chris M]

Wow, necro thread!

I guess seeing possible contraband in open view gave her probable cause for a search.

At least I used the search and didn't start a new one...Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :confused:

Why not just lock threads that fall off the first page, so that people can't reply to them? :rolleyes:

[dfletcher]

This past weekend I got stopped at the I-40 checkpoint, driving my mother from Austin, TX to San Jose. It was late at night, I was tired, I don't even remember if the lady asked if we had any fruit - she just started shining her light in the back of the van, and spotted a small case of Clementines. She asked where we got them. I said "Whole Foods". She confiscated them and told me "I need you to unlock the rear of the vehicle." She then proceeded to dig through the cooler and move our stuff around. She spotted some apples, but let us keep them as they were grown in washington.

I hadn't driven into CA from out of state for about 10 years, and had completely forgot about the Agricultural Checkpoints.

OK, I'll bite - what's a Clementine?

[Glock22Fan]

At least I used the search and didn't start a new one...Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :confused:

Why not just lock threads that fall off the first page, so that people can't reply to them? :rolleyes:

Hey, Chris, I wasn't mad and didn't mean to be critical, just amused and amazed that anyone had gone back so far. No offense intended.

As far as starting it anywhere but the first page, that's the first I've heard of that idea. To me, a necro thread is one that's really old and someone resurrects it.

To answer Fletch, it is a small citrus fruit, like a baby orange, very similar to a tangerine.

[thegratenate]

When the I15 check station was not funded for a few years I got used to driving through without turning off the cruise control, I think I may have scared the inspectors the first few times I barreled in at 75. It also spooks passengers when you go between the barrels at full speed(I don't understand why it's not like the increased speed makes the gap any smaller).

[GrizzlyGuy]

I know this is a necrothread, but I got curious about agricultural checkpoints after reading about DHS abuses in the DHS Checkpoint, is this legal? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237920) thread going on over in Off-topic. I thought I'd document a few things from my research in case someone finds this thread while searching (like I did).

It looks like People v. Dickinson (http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800411_0040879.CA.htm/qx) is the controlling case law. A few excerpts:

"The first question is whether motorists can be stopped at the inspection stations. To that extent the situation is comparable to fixed border patrol checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) 428 U.S. 543, [49 L.Ed.2d 1116, 96 S.Ct. 3074], determined that checkpoints do not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation of the rights of motorists and their passengers. The court found that neither warrant nor probable cause was required to briefly stop motorists at the checkpoint to ask a few questions. The same held true of singling out some of the motorists and their passengers for further inquiry which caused an additional three- to five-minute delay in most cases."

----

"The scope of our decision is simply that the quarantine officers may stop motorists at the inspection stations and request to look into the trunk of the vehicle. This is in accord with United States v. Ortiz and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. If the motorist voluntarily opens the trunk of the vehicle, the quarantine officer may look therein and, as here, remove any plant materials in plain view for further inspection. We do not address the full scope of search which may be available for quarantine purposes as that is unnecessary to our decision. We also do not decide anything concerning the refusal to allow search for that is not the case before us."

Anyhoo, back to the dead-pile this thread shall go. :D

ETA: This case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c021585.doc) about a stop at a Fish & Game checkpoint is a funny read. Reminded me of PullNShoot's 'how not to do a 12031e check' video, but this is for real.

[Unit74]

Question: If they were to ask me to remove the seat and I allow it, am I "consenting" to a search of my tow vehicle as well?

Al

No. The inspection must be limited to the area in question. They are inspecting, not searching your PWC for mussels. There would be no reason to enter any other place other than where the mussels may be found.

Simply say specifically you can look in my bilge, no problem. If they go anywhere else, tell them you did not submit to a search of your property and ask them what their reasonable suspicion is for looking elsewhere.

[DrjonesUSA]

They don't want us bringing any fruits or nuts into this state because there are already so many here. :rolleyes:

[guntntteacher]

How the hell does all the mexican fruit and veggies get in then?

[RudyN]

I came back from Las Vegas this past Thursday and was just waived through.

[Meplat]

Are you sure it was an AG inspector? Lots of Border Patrol check points that far south.

Obviously you didnt see my post in the 2admedment forum, where I was serached by a ag inspector coming from vegas a few months ago.

[SNEAKS]

If you have any type of watercraft that you are towing they will stop you and ask a few questions and check if you plug is out and craft is fully drained. They are looking for the quagga mussels. They also search any trailers that carry livestock.