What do these checkpoints actually involve? Just a verbal asking whether you have produce?
When the California marijuana crop is infested with Eastern pot weevils, we’ll know who to blame!
It’s been a while for me, but yeah, just asking and maybe the guy looks into the back seat (which he can’t see well from the booth). Of course, sometimes the booths aren’t even manned, esp. on the lesser roads.
So if you lie and say you don’t have any fruit, you have a very low chance of being caught.
I think the main purpose is for public education: Hey folks, don’t carry who knows what all around, you might be spreading something. Actual enforcement is secondary unless it’s for truckers where they want to see manifests.
Courts have upheld the right of states to restrict interstate commerce for limited reasons. But I think the border checkpoints are considered internal checkpoints. I.e., they are officially regulating what you can move around inside CA. So they are not literally at the border but somewhat inside. You are not ejected from CA if you have unapproved fruit. You just can’t travel any further.
You can even dodge the one at Yermo by turning off the 15 onto Kelbaker Rd. Of course it will take you twice as long to get to LA, but that’s the price you pay for FREEDOM!
Indeed. Careless stalks cost lives.
Yes it is; it was your point. Why are you assuming anyone who declines a search is bringing fruit across?
- …goes on to diatribe. *
Freedom isn’t free, after all. This is just one more sad reminder of the true sacrifices we have to make if we want to maintain our freedom.
Just because he’s an unbearable asshole doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He has rights protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure as well as rights protecting him from making incriminating statements. Roadblocks are unconstitutional by definition. Unfortunately, so far only Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming recognize this. It will take the arrest and trial of assholes of this very stripe across the nation to fix this injustice.
In the court of internet opinion jerk = wrong, thankfully reality is more nuanced.
So, in your opinion, are the measures designed to protect a multi-billion dollar industry unreasonable?
Cite please? Are we talking about federal or state? Not being a smart ass here, I’ve had my own fun with these both types of crossings (being an Aspie really sucks with these guys :().
Yes, it is more nuanced:
Mr. Seims is fooling himself if he thinks that inspections are unconstitutional. States have an explicit right to inspect interstate commerce goods, period. By what means, methods, etc…that’s open to debate. In addition, for the 4th Amendment, the courts have ruled that searches are allowed if there is probable cause.
For example, when you enter the United States from a foreign destination, your protection from search and seizures apply. The caveat is that as far as the courts are concerned, the Federal government already has probable cause to perform searches of you and your luggage at the port of entry. (I’d like to see Mr. Seims perform the hot-house flower act with immigration officials at Dulles Int’l airport.) AFAIK, there’s nothing stopping Congress (or would it be the state legislatures?) from assigning agricultural inspectors the same kind of legal authority for probable cause at the state border (subject to review).
I would have greater praise for Gavin for going after the NSA, but then we would be missing “Cultural Learnings of Mr. Seims Most Excellent Assholian Adventures of California Republic”
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. California can maintain the checkpoints, as long as they allow you to decline answering questions and consenting to a search.
How does that protect the agricultural economy?
The same way it does in that video? The checkpoints need only be used to inform.
Searching every vehicle indiscriminately is just as unreasonable as police searching every residence. The onus is on the authorities to come up with a solution that doesn’t violate citizens’ freedoms. ‘Violate our rights until you figure out how not to’ is not a viable solution.
The fact that it is a billion dollar industry is not a relevant factor constitutionally-speaking. With the stakes being so high, it’s a sticky wicket, doubtlessly - but no more so than the protected hate speech that falls short of inciting action.
user_hostile, the Supreme Court has unfortunately balked at a definitive ruling on roadblocks and instead opted for individual states to decide on whether or not they’re unconstitutional.
So in other words, the Supreme Court found them to be constitutional?
No. They largely washed their hands of it. Now each state decides. They did find drug searching roadblocks to be unconstitutional.
Do you have a cite for that? Nowhere in the article linked to nor in my own quick search does it state that the importation of firewood from Wisconsin was responsible for the infestation of Illinois or that full compliance with inspections would halt its spread. Do you not think it’s possible for invasive species to spread without hitching a ride in a car? Those things fly, you know.
A US citizen does have the right to travel to any state he wishes and even live there if that’s what he wants to do.
However, it does make sense to say that the right to travel to another state doesn’t mean that you don’t have to obey the laws of that state to the extent that they are Constitutional. I would suppose this means that California checkpoints can’t turn you away as undesirable in the state. They might be able to search you, seize fruits or vegetables, but once they’ve done that, their only options would be to let you proceed or arrest you for violating some law. But once you were free again, they couldn’t “deport” you as an undesirable alien or something like that.
If East Coast states started having checkpoints, it could cause a traffic nightmare. Many of the biggest East Coast cities are bordered by state lines or are close to them, and the area on the other side tends to be built up as a suburb or sister city, with the end result being a combined economic area. Obvious examples are Philadelphia (located on the New Jersey state line and very close to Delaware), NYC (on the NJ line too, and ether on or close to the Connecticut line), and DC (adjacent to both Virginia and Maryland).
Imagine if you had to pass a checkpoint every day on your way to work.
We have an Emerald Ash borer problem in the Midwest, and Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio all prohibit transporting firewood into their states. Can you imagine how stupid and wasteful it would be to have checkpoints at every state border, so we could ask people whether they have firewood in their possession?
-
Unless you have a checkpoint at every road coming into the state, you will not screen everyone. And it just takes one, or rather two, pests to create a problem.
-
If you just target heavily traveled tourist roads, there are going to be tourists who take other roads, especially if you have a traffic jam, and especially if these checkpoints create a delay.
-
Even if you do catch someone transporting the dreaded orange weevil and destroy it, what are you going to do about the person who innocently threw their orange away in the Nevada restroom 1/2 mile away? Or the person who traveled into the state on a highway that doesn’t have a checkpoint?
-
If it’s more of an education campaign, wouldn’t it be more effective to put up billboards asking people “Got this?” and showing pictures of fruits and firewood.