Ammo transport-Burden of Proof

[abinsinia]

aside from the sac state professor who stalks the cabelas in Reno......has anyone ever been pulled over and searched and been detained and convicted of transporting more then 50 rounds of ammo back into the state? If so, how did the officer know? All ag checks usually just waive your through......

I've watched video where people get stopped at the ag check point when told they need an "inspection" for fruits and vegetables. They say "We don't consent, per the 4th amendment you need a warrant." , then the police say "It's not a search , it's an inspection." then the car gets "inspected" searched without a warrant or probable cause.

There is some judicial precedent where an "inspection" can be done without a warrant , it's a search under a different name.

[u04601]

In order to be cited for the infraction, the officer would have to witness the purchase, and crossing of the state line. He/she would have to maintain visual contact from purchase to state line.

Since there is an easy out written right in the law, for those of us who take a spouse with us, it really is irrelevant, not to mention a complete and total waste of LE time and resources.

(6) A person who acquired the ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member as defined in Section 16720.
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction for any first time offense, and either an infraction or a misdemeanor for any subsequent offense.

So my son who lives in Arizona could give me a case of ammo for father's day, birthday, Chistmas, or any other reason to give a gift and I could bring it back with me?

[AlHO1966]

Burden of proof is on the state... travel freely, don’t speed and you would be fine.

[RickD427]

I've watched video where people get stopped at the ag check point when told they need an "inspection" for fruits and vegetables. They say "We don't consent, per the 4th amendment you need a warrant." , then the police say "It's not a search , it's an inspection." then the car gets "inspected" searched without a warrant or probable cause.

There is some judicial precedent where an "inspection" can be done without a warrant , it's a search under a different name.

There's not much to the distinction between a "Search" and an "Inspection." There is a semantic difference in that a search is done to find a thing believed to be present while an inspection is done to either confirm that a required thing is present, or that a prohibited thing is not present. But that difference is irrelevant here. Both are controlled by the Fourth Amendment.

A lot of folks erroneously believe that a search warrant is required to search a vehicle when "Probable Cause" is present. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this is not true. Please refer to U.S. v Ross. The key summary of that case is that LEOs having probable cause to search a vehicle may search it as thoroughly as if they had a search warrant, without need of a search warrant (and Justice Marshall wrote a stinging dissent that is worth reading). A few subsequent cases have chipped slightly away at that broad holding, but the case still stands.

But there is no "Probable Cause" provided simply because a vehicle passes through a checkpoint. Case law does provide the checkpoint inspectors limited detention authority to ask questions, and to formulate needed PC for a search or inspection. Please see the California Court of Appeals 1980 decision in People v Dickinson for a good discussion of how the process works.

[abinsinia]

There's not much to the distinction between a "Search" and an "Inspection." There is a semantic difference in that a search is done to find a thing believed to be present while an inspection is done to either confirm that a required thing is present, or that a prohibited thing is not present. But that difference is irrelevant here. Both are controlled by the Fourth Amendment.

A lot of folks erroneously believe that a search warrant is required to search a vehicle when "Probable Cause" is present. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this is not true. Please refer to U.S. v Ross. The key summary of that case is that LEOs having probable cause to search a vehicle may search it as thoroughly as if they had a search warrant, without need of a search warrant (and Justice Marshall wrote a stinging dissent that is worth reading). A few subsequent cases have chipped slightly away at that broad holding, but the case still stands.

But there is no "Probable Cause" provided simply because a vehicle passes through a checkpoint. Case law does provide the checkpoint inspectors limited detention authority to ask questions, and to formulate needed PC for a search or inspection. Please see the California Court of Appeals 1980 decision in People v Dickinson for a good discussion of how the process works.

There is a guy on youtube I watch frequently named Rick Gore, he's retire California LEO.

He claimed that people who are designated for specific things, like auto theft and ag inspection don't need PC to search under the guise of "inspetion". He said when he worked auto theft that he could inspect any vehicle he wanted to without PC, often other officer would ask him to search vehicles which they had no PC for a search under the guise of "inspection" bypassing the 4th amedment. He said he never did such vehicle inspections at the request of other officers, because he felt it was a violation of the 4th amendment.

Here is his channel,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsgkhimI0MthrMZo-F2zrTQ

[faterikcartman]

Never have been asked about anything not related to agriculture, and the inspectors have always been really pleasant.

There really must be two tiers of justice. I haven't been asked about squat diddly in many years. They just waive me through. Would love to know what sort of undocumented profiling they do. I would be asked about where I was coming from and fruits and veg when I looked poor and drove a beater years ago. But not so much in recent decades.

That said, I'll be sitting on the curb while my seats are cut open looking for papayas and mangos the next time I come back from Vegas just to strike me down for the hubris of this post.

[RickD427]

There is a guy on youtube I watch frequently named Rick Gore, he's retire California LEO.

He claimed that people who are designated for specific things, like auto theft and ag inspection don't need PC to search under the guise of "inspetion". He said when he worked auto theft that he could inspect any vehicle he wanted to without PC, often other officer would ask him to search vehicles which they had no PC for a search under the guise of "inspection" bypassing the 4th amedment. He said he never did such vehicle inspections at the request of other officers, because he felt it was a violation of the 4th amendment.

Here is his channel,
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsg...MthrMZo-F2zrTQ

It sounds like the retired LEO is referring to Vehicle Code section 2805. That section provides that LEOs assigned the vehicle theft details (and presumably having specialized training in that area) to inspect vehicles in designated places (including highways) to determine ownership.

It's important to note that such inspections are limited as to place and to scope.

It's not "Bypassing" the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment does not require that searches be based on probable cause, or that searches require a warrant (a lot of folks infer such requirements because the Fourth Amendment does require that warrants be based on Probable Cause). The Fourth Amendment only requires that searches be "Reasonable."

[edgerly779]

I hunt dove in Az near blythe and stay in Blythe every day back and forth with ammo. During late dove same thing and hunt geese as wll.

[P5Ret]

There really must be two tiers of justice. I haven't been asked about squat diddly in many years. They just waive me through. Would love to know what sort of undocumented profiling they do. I would be asked about where I was coming from and fruits and veg when I looked poor and drove a beater years ago. But not so much in recent decades.

That said, I'll be sitting on the curb while my seats are cut open looking for papayas and mangos the next time I come back from Vegas just to strike me down for the hubris of this post.

If you have Ca plates you're probably a lot less likely to be asked anything. I suspect Rick has plates from a northern western state, and is likely to be asked a question or two.

I've never been stopped on 80, 50, or 15 coming back from Nevada. Coming back from Oregon on 97 is usually a different experience.

[abinsinia]

It sounds like the retired LEO is referring to Vehicle Code section 2805. That section provides that LEOs assigned the vehicle theft details (and presumably having specialized training in that area) to inspect vehicles in designated places (including highways) to determine ownership.

It's important to note that such inspections are limited as to place and to scope.

It's not "Bypassing" the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment does not require that searches be based on probable cause, or that searches require a warrant (a lot of folks infer such requirements because the Fourth Amendment does require that warrants be based on Probable Cause). The Fourth Amendment only requires that searches be "Reasonable."

It sounds like your backing off what you originally said.. ag checks don't need PC then, they can just search because they believe it's reasonable , right ? Or there could be a similar code for ag station which allow searches without PC or warrant .. Like you said , they believe it's reasonable to "inspect" for fruits and vegetables.

AG Inspector : Do you have an fruits or vegetables or ammo?
Driver : I'm not answering questions, am I free to go?
AG Inspector : You can go, but your vehicle is impounded for "inspection".

Above there is no PC which can be developed .. Is it reasonable ?

[CheapBloke]

Drive a Prius with Biden/Bernie stickers, a Rainbow somewhere, coexist bs as well, and SJW sticker as well.
They'll leave you alone.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

It sounds like your backing off what you originally said.. ag checks don't need PC then, they can just search because they believe it's reasonable , right ? Or there could be a similar code for ag station which allow searches without PC or warrant .. Like you said , they believe it's reasonable to "inspect" for fruits and vegetables.

AG Inspector : Do you have an fruits or vegetables or ammo?
Driver : I'm not answering questions, am I free to go?
AG Inspector : You can go, but your vehicle is impounded for "inspection".

Above there is no PC which can be developed .. Is it reasonable ?

No "backing off", just refining the perspective as we move along.

It's important to remember that the Fourth Amendment "trumps" any provision in statute that would provide to the contrary.

As to your hypothetical discussion above, the reply "I'm not answering any questions, am I free to go" could be taken as an adoptive admission (Please refer to Salinas v Texas). That response to the question "Do you have any Fruits or Vegetables" (the Ag inspector doesn't get to ask about ammo) is evasive to the question asked, and the officer is free to draw conclusions resulting from the evasion.

[bronco75a]

Whip out your cell phone and take a picture of said ammo you're leaving with and when you return with same ammo you got proof it originated in California - take a picture of your vehicle next to a street sign if you have to authenticate location.

[Featureless]

In the meantime they'll confiscate it and you'll never get it back. That's the worst part.

[Mayor McRifle]

Whip out your cell phone and take a picture of said ammo you're leaving with and when you return with same ammo you got proof it originated in California - take a picture of your vehicle next to a street sign if you have to authenticate location.

In the meantime they'll confiscate it and you'll never get it back. That's the worst part.

Have you seen this happen, or are you just making stuff up again?