Ridiculously long day trips

[jwolfer]

When i was about 7 my 16 year old sister ran away from home in Pt. Pleasant Beach, NJ and made it to my Granny's house in Jacksonville. 

My mom and her friend drove to fetch her with my brother and i in the back of our 1973 Ford LTD wood panel wagon. (My dad could not get time off.).  They got her and turned around and drove back. My mom is the queen of 55 so 18 hours each way.. Her friend got a kick out of saying she took a trip to Florida for a cup of coffee...

Bad enough alone. I could not imagine 2 little kids and being pissed at a 16 year old...with that drive

LGMS428

[jwolfer]

I did go counterclockwise, I went through Detroit and then came back at the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge.  I`ve actually driven around Lake Erie twice, but the second time I did it I took two days and stayed with friends.

I don`t recall customs being a huge deal, though I think on one of the occasions that I did it they may have searched the car when I re-entered Canada.  You have to anticipate being searched every now and then though when you cross, so it really wasn`t that big of deal.

It`s not a crime to do odd things.

When i go on roadgeeking trips i always think of a reason to be there for the cops if i get pulled over Its not illegal to do something odd, but most cops would think you are running drugs or some sort of 'home-grown' terrorist. Especially if you are seen taking pics of infastructure or construction..

Thankfully it hasnt happened but i dont have to go through customs etc.

Although my brother in Maryland gave my parents his old car, i flew to D.C. and drove it home to Jacksonville.. I got a speeding ticket in Sellers SC on us301, avoiding a wreck on 95.  I was expecting flack for a FL DL with MD tags and registration, but no prob... Maybe bevause i had a reason for my travels

LGMS428

[vdeane]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

[hbelkins]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

Why should one have to justify where they're going, or why?

"Just out for a drive" ought to be a perfectly good reason.

[Max Rockatansky]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

Why should one have to justify where they're going, or why?

"Just out for a drive" ought to be a perfectly good reason.

Tell that to any Border Patrol Agent in Southern Arizona and New Mexico, I guarantee they'll disagree.  The last time I got one of those talks was heading south on AZ 85 past Why to Organ Pipe National Monument.  I was out there to check out a dirt road I had never done, you'd swear that was about the most suspicious thing I could have ever said.

[jwolfer]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

Why should one have to justify where they're going, or why?

"Just out for a drive" ought to be a perfectly good reason.

It should be that way.. But realistically if you say "out for a drive" cops would find that evasive, especially if you are out your local area

LGMS428

[Rothman]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

It would fall under the territory driving being a privilege and not a right.  You don't "have" to drive but if you do you consent to X, Y, and Z rules.  Airports operate under the same assumption in the transportation world in regards to screening.  And really if you aren't being arrested for a crime or prosecuted it would hard to argue a fourth amendment violation. 

Now, the one that really pisses me off....or rather is just a pet peeve is the agricultural stations at the state lines here in California.  Florida had them too, but for commercial vehicles....here they just check everyone for produce.  Granted the reason it is probably like that is to save money on building a big complicated and dedicated commercial checkpoint when you can just lob one in the middle of the existing road.  For the most part the agriculture inspectors have just waved me me by without asking any questions the last couple years, sure didn't used to be that way.

[wanderer2575]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

Why should one have to justify where they're going, or why?

"Just out for a drive" ought to be a perfectly good reason.

It should be that way.. But realistically if you say "out for a drive" cops would find that evasive, especially if you are out your local area

LGMS428

Funny this came up today as I'm just now thinking about a roadtrip out east.  Among other stops, I want to get photos in Houlton ME and the end of US-2.  But I'm wondering, if I got on the I-95 ramp there and went to the border to get a photo of the END I-95 assembly, what kind of hassle might I expect from Canada Customs ("I'm just here to make a U-turn") and U.S. Customs?

[hbelkins]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

[jeffandnicole]

I once had to explain about my trip when the state police decided to do a "safety" checkpoint on NY 74 between I-87 and US 9 when I was out clinching some things.  Fortunately it was in the Adirondacks, so it's not like the roads weren't scenic, and I didn't need to do much to justify myself.

Why should one have to justify where they're going, or why?

"Just out for a drive" ought to be a perfectly good reason.

It should be that way.. But realistically if you say "out for a drive" cops would find that evasive, especially if you are out your local area

LGMS428

Funny this came up today as I'm just now thinking about a roadtrip out east.  Among other stops, I want to get photos in Houlton ME and the end of US-2.  But I'm wondering, if I got on the I-95 ramp there and went to the border to get a photo of the END I-95 assembly, what kind of hassle might I expect from Canada Customs ("I'm just here to make a U-turn") and U.S. Customs?

"I'm just making a U-turn" isn't unusual when you get to a secured checkpoint.  Just look a little confused. :-)

[jakeroot]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

The fourth amendment does not necessarily protect against checkpoints, but there are several States that have their own protection against checkpoints. Washington State's Supreme Court ruled against checkpoints in the 80s, citing the state's Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law".

[Rothman]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

Right, but they're not discriminating between those they would have actual cause to stop and those they would not.  They're just stopping everyone -- just being behind a wheel is apparently enough cause for them to stop you and check for sobriety or whatever else.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

The fourth amendment does not necessarily protect against checkpoints, but there are several States that have their own protection against checkpoints. Washington State's Supreme Court ruled against checkpoints in the 80s, citing the state's Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law".

Yeah but that's a ruling on State Level Constitional Law.  Basically states can afford greater constitutional protects so long as minimum they conform to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. That wording "private affairs" apparently means even driving your car to the state of Washington.

[jakeroot]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

The fourth amendment does not necessarily protect against checkpoints, but there are several States that have their own protection against checkpoints. Washington State's Supreme Court ruled against checkpoints in the 80s, citing the state's Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law".

Yeah but that's a ruling on State Level Constitional Law.  Basically states can afford greater constitutional protects so long as minimum they conform to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. That wording "private affairs" apparently means even driving your car to the state of Washington.

Right, exactly. I assume that states along the southern border probably don't have similar constitutional articles, due to high levels of illegal immigration. My point (really directed at Rothman) was that the fourth amendment still permits checkpoints, but some states take privacy to the next level by banning checkpoints at the their level.

[vdeane]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

My case was actually a temporary checkpoint.  There were multiple police cars on both sides of NY 74 with officers standing on the double yellow line stopping and questioning everyone.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

Sounds more like a checkpoint, where the cops are checking for sobriety or proof of insurance, instead of the poster (I think it was Valerie) being pulled over and singled out for a stop.

The fourth amendment does not necessarily protect against checkpoints, but there are several States that have their own protection against checkpoints. Washington State's Supreme Court ruled against checkpoints in the 80s, citing the state's Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law".

Yeah but that's a ruling on State Level Constitional Law.  Basically states can afford greater constitutional protects so long as minimum they conform to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. That wording "private affairs" apparently means even driving your car to the state of Washington.

Right, exactly. I assume that states along the southern border probably don't have similar constitutional articles, due to high levels of illegal immigration. My point (really directed at Rothman) was that the fourth amendment still permits checkpoints, but some states take privacy to the next level by banning checkpoints at the their level.

Yep, and it gets more interesting in states like Florida where there can and has been Border Patrol checkpoints in the past.  I couldn't resist chiming in since Criminal, Constitutional, and Procedural law were all part of my major in college.

[J N Winkler]

I'm wondering how those stops don't violate the right to due process or the Fourth Amendment.  Just driving around is cause enough to stop people?  Seems like a stretch to me.

There are US Supreme Court decisions that lay out specific and limited exceptions for certain types of random checkpoints, including Border Patrol checkpoints, sobriety checkpoints, and agricultural inspections in California.  The key commonalities are that if not all traffic is stopped, traffic must be chosen for stopping by a method that guarantees randomness (e.g., every third vehicle signalled to stop), and further search requires probable cause.  Legal U-turns to avoid checkpoints do not constitute probable cause.  The jurisprudence on drug checkpoints is rather cloudy, but a recent decision has established that if the officers do not have the drug dog handy (if the dog alerts, that is probable cause to search your vehicle for drugs), they cannot make you wait for it to arrive.

Funny this came up today as I'm just now thinking about a roadtrip out east.  Among other stops, I want to get photos in Houlton ME and the end of US-2.  But I'm wondering, if I got on the I-95 ramp there and went to the border to get a photo of the END I-95 assembly, what kind of hassle might I expect from Canada Customs ("I'm just here to make a U-turn") and U.S. Customs?

My suggestion would be that you take the relevant photos on foot and that you take your passport (or other identity document that meets WHTI standards) with you.  You have no obligation to present yourself to the Canadian immigration officers unless you actually set foot in Canada, and on the US side the immigration officers will usually be accommodating if you present yourself for inspection and say that you have just been taking pictures at the border without crossing into the neighboring country.  I have done this successfully at Eastpoint, Idaho and Lukeville, Arizona.

The ports of entry that are the most troublesome are the ones with fencing right at the road edge with "No Pedestrians" signs--Mariposa, Arizona (near Nogales) is one example.  In some places the signing you are interested in may be upstream of a final turnaround (usually located so that if you use it to U-turn, you join traffic leaving the POE after clearing immigration and customs), but such turnarounds are not universally provided.

I cannot recall encountering a land border crossing where photography was prohibited on the US side.  However, the Border Patrol does prohibit photography at some of its checkpoints, including the one on I-19 northbound just south of Amado.  At this checkpoint, the photography prohibition applies only to the last hundred feet or so before the line where the officers stand processing traffic, and does not apply to any of the advance signing.  I personally think these photography bans are constitutionally infirm, but I would not like to make myself a test case and have government lawyers try to bowl the judge over with some kind of national-security exception.

Tell that to any Border Patrol Agent in Southern Arizona and New Mexico, I guarantee they'll disagree.  The last time I got one of those talks was heading south on AZ 85 past Why to Organ Pipe National Monument.  I was out there to check out a dirt road I had never done, you'd swear that was about the most suspicious thing I could have ever said.

It got kind of interesting a few days ago when I passed through the I-19 Amado checkpoint.  This time they were actually checking traffic, not just waving it through, like they had been doing a few days earlier at the I-10 MP 119 checkpoint near Columbus, New Mexico.  I rolled down the window and the Border Patrol officer (female, Hispanic-looking) asked me something.  I couldn't hear it (of course not, with > 90% hearing loss in both ears), and on the lips it didn't look like the usual "Are you a US citizen?"  I shook my head in incomprehension.  Then she said something that had the word "ID" in it.  I said, "Why do you need to see ID?"  Then she pointed to the secondary inspection area and told me to go there.

I pulled up and two (male, Anglo-looking) Border Patrol officers came up to me and said something that again had "ID" in it.  I made a scribbling gesture and one of them pulled out a small notepad.  "Do you have ID?"  I wrote back:  "Does it have to be citizenship proof?"  Pad comes back:  "Are you a US citizen?"  "Yes."  "You can go."

I actually had both my driver's license and my passport with me, but I didn't want to dig for my wallet (I carry it in my right front pocket and thus would have had to take off my seatbelt), and the passport was out of reach on the floor behind the driver's seat.

[US 41]

Yeah "just driving" is not a good excuse. It's gotten me searched both times I've used it. Of course I never have anything illegal on me, and my car is extremely clean (not cluttered) so it's always really quick and easy.

[cl94]

I did Buffalo to Lake George/western Vermont a few times in high school and undergrad. That's 5.5 hours straight driving. From Buffalo, I always did Pittsburgh as a day trip (~4 hours straight driving, plus several hours there). Last spring, I did a trip to New Hampshire and Burlington as a day trip. Was out for ~19 hours.

[kphoger]

"Are you a US citizen?"  "Yes."  "You can go."

I believe that question is the only one to which they're legally entitled to an answer.  Once you say 'yes,' you theoretically don't have to answer any more questions.  There have been cases of people putting that to the test, however, and it ending up badly for them because the drug dog supposedly made some sort of 'indication' which sent them in for secondary.

I've never been sent to secondary.  The one time I've been asked more than my citizenship was on I-35 north out of Laredo.  They asked where I was coming from, and I decided to just try 'Laredo.'  (That wasn't actually true, as I had bypassed Laredo and crossed the border at Colombia.)  The agent asked if we had been in Mexico as well, and I went ahead and answered yes.  Pressing an issue with a gun-wielding official is one thing to consider in the comfort of your own home, but it's another thing altogether to actually do in real life.

[J N Winkler]

I believe that question is the only one to which they're legally entitled to an answer.  Once you say 'yes,' you theoretically don't have to answer any more questions.  There have been cases of people putting that to the test, however, and it ending up badly for them because the drug dog supposedly made some sort of 'indication' which sent them in for secondary.

Actually, you are not even required to say whether you are a citizen.  You can politely refuse to answer and they have to let you go unless they find probable cause for search.  The dogs are one way to manufacture such.

I've never been sent to secondary.  The one time I've been asked more than my citizenship was on I-35 north out of Laredo.  They asked where I was coming from, and I decided to just try 'Laredo.'  (That wasn't actually true, as I had bypassed Laredo and crossed the border at Colombia.)  The agent asked if we had been in Mexico as well, and I went ahead and answered yes.  Pressing an issue with a gun-wielding official is one thing to consider in the comfort of your own home, but it's another thing altogether to actually do in real life.

I don't have a problem saying that I am a US citizen.  I also don't usually have a problem with opening my trunk for inspection because every car I have owned since 1995 has had an internal trunk release that is accessible to the driver.  (My first car was a 1978 Chevy Impala base model and I suspect an internal release might have been an extra-cost option.)  However, I was pushing back on the ID questions because neither of the two forms of ID I had was within easy reach.

In regard to trunk searches, I don't think I have ever encountered that in Arizona or Texas, but I did once on US 70 just outside the entrance to White Sands National Monument, where the Border Patrol intercepts traffic going east from Las Cruces.  The officers cannot require that the trunk be opened for searching unless there is probable cause, but if they ask the driver to open the trunk without saying that he or she can refuse to do so, then it counts as a search with the driver's consent.  The Border Patrol (and law enforcement in general) is tricky that way.

[cl94]

For a while, everyone was getting trunk searched at Lewiston, NY heading into the US. That was quite a pain.

I've been secondaried once at the north end of I-95 (with NEXUS). Nobody passed by in either direction in the 10 minutes they were tearing apart my car.

[epzik8]

Back in December, I left my dad's house in the Baltimore suburb of Jarrettsville, Maryland at 4:30 in the morning, made my way to I-83 and took that through York, Pennsylvania and to the Pennsylvania Turnpike; then I took the Turnpike 242 miles into Ohio, and by crossing the state line I clinched the mainline PA Turnpike. From there I continued on I-76, now the Ohio Turnpike, to the first exit at I-680 and took that to U.S. 62 in Youngstown. A few miles up the road in Hubbard, Ohio, I picked up I-80, which within a few minutes took me back into Pennsylvania. It was a little after 10AM when I re-entered Pennsylvania. I stopped at a rest area in Venango County before exiting I-80 at exit 123 in Clearfield County and taking whatever road that is to U.S. 322. Stopped for lunch at Sheetz in Philipsburg. Eventually I made it to I-99 and passed through the area of a certain university whose name I refuse to mention due to my low opinion of that university. By 1:00 I was continuing to make my way down 322 in Mifflin County. I got to Harrisburg, taking I-81 a few miles to I-83, and took I-83 through Harrisburg, and then when I got to the Turnpike interchange I was going back the way I had come in that morning. I fueled up at Rutter's off I-83 exit 32 in Newberry Township, York County. I exited I-83 at Shrewsbury (exit 4) and took PA-851 to PA-24 at Stewartstown, then took PA-24 back into Maryland where it becomes MD-23. And then I took local roads the rest of the way back to my dad's neighborhood. I arrived back at 3:30 PM, 11 hours after my departure.

[epzik8]

The very next day after my Ohio trip, I left just after 5AM and made my way to U.S. Route 1, took that over the Conowingo Dam, then cut through Cecil County taking MD-273 to 274 to 272 to I-95, got off at Exit 109 and took MD-279 into Elkton, then followed MD-213 from there into Kent County, and took MD-313 from Galena to the U.S. 301 junction. Followed 301 back to 213 and took that to U.S. 50, then I took the 404 through Denton, into Delaware and to U.S. 13 at Bridgeville where I stopped at Wawa at about 8AM. I took U.S. 13 into Maryland, bypassed Salisbury, went through Princess Anne and Pocomoke City, and landed in Virginia's Eastern Shore. I kept going on U.S. 13 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and exited onto U.S. 60 at Virginia Beach and made my way to I-64. Took I-64 into Richmond, which I reached just after noon. Since I'm a NASCAR fan, I looked for and found the Richmond International Raceway, took some pictures, and then got onto I-295 to I-95. I got off I-95 at exit 104 and took the Route 207 connection to U.S. 301 at Bowling Green, and took 301 across the Potomac River into Maryland. I stopped for gas in Bowie and then hit up U.S. 50 to go to I-97. I took that to I-895, went through the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, rejoined I-95, got off at exit 74 and then went the rest of the way back to my dad's house on state routes. I was back about 5:35 PM.