Just curious about California's Agricultural Inspection stations. I understand why they're there; we have them in Florida as well, but FL exempts private passenger cars from inspection.
I only have three data points, with three different outcomes:
2011 - I-40/Needles - my car w/ FL tag - "Got any fruit?", a glance in the cabin, and a wave-through.
2014 - CA 139/Tulelake - rental car w/ CA tag - the station was closed, so I just drove by
2014 - I-80/Truckee - my car w/ FL tag - "Got any fruit?", a more thorough glance in the cabin, then I was asked to open my trunk. I was then presented with this souvenir:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2Fgotanyfruit2_zps656cc612.jpg&hash=982673d841f97768aa3e528d47e28e04dc8bac41)
Did something change in 3 years? Was I just randomly singled out for a trunk search? Or do they do this with any out-of-state tags? Maybe I just ran into a guy having a bad day?
Having driven a 26' Penske trick out of Florida, I can say their Aqua-Horti-Agriculture Inspections took about 15 seconds. It took longer to unlock and open the roll-up door. I guess all the irregularly-shaped boxes and haphazardly-placed items made them look elsewhere, not to mention October isn't much of a harvest season in Florida.
I've never had a search. In all the years I've gone through California Ag Inspection stations, the most I've been asked was if I was carrying any fruit or where I was coming from. In the last several years, this has been through either the I-80 Truckee station or the one on US 395 north of Reno.
I've always been waved through with nothing more than a "have any fruit?" and maybe a "where are you coming from?"
One time, though- as I was leaving Arizona to move to Montana I decided to go up through California to finish my clinch of US 95 in the state the next morning. There was a major snowstorm going on from Nevada up to Montana, so I put my studs on in Tucson before I left. Got to the border at SR-62 at about 10:00 PM, was going to spend the night in Needles.
Lady was really, really curious about why I had studded snow tires on. She was asking in a polite way,but she was definitely probing a lot- it wasn't unlike crossing an international boundary with a friendly, easy to work with guard. "Oh, you're moving to Montana? What kind of job do you have up there? I used to live in Montana"
It was polite and friendly enough, and she let me buy after a couple minutes of questioning- and I do believe she was just bored and trying to make casual conversation, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've gone through twice in the past four years pulling a travel trailer. First time as on I-8, and I had brought our vegetables up front in a plastic bag. Kind of took the agent by surprise, he glanced at our red pepper and lettuce (probably not high on the concern list) and waved us through. I was relieved since we were following a truck with a roll-up door and they gave it a once-over. Second time near Reno on NB 395, agent was on the phone and waved us through. Tourists must not be high on their list.
I've crossed the station at Yermo many times, and only been stopped once - the one time I had a U-haul when I was moving. Incidently, they're building the replacement for the Yermo station near Primm finally. Hopefully they'll three-lane at least that stretch of highway all the way back to the state line (probably about 10 miles, roughly), since cars leaving it will be going uphill towards Baker - not a huge deal for autos, but problematic for trucks.
The one time I got a trunk search was when I came through the Truckee station after doing a Feather River Highway loop. "Where are you coming from?" "Sacramento." (Disbelieving tone) "Sorry, where are you coming from again?" "SACRAMENTO." Then he decided he needed to see my trunk, and saw nothing.
The first time I went through agricultural inspection was on I-10 in late 1998. "Do you have any fruit or vegetables?" "No" (said around a mouthful of carrot, with the rest of the carrot in my fingers).
Quote from: DesertDog on July 13, 2014, 08:15:56 PM
2. From I-15 enter California from Nevada. Get off at exit 206 at Yermo road to cruise nice and easy past all the schmucks in line for the agriculture station. Personally I got back on at exit 191 after I went to Calico....take advantage while you can before Caltrans seals off the leak with the new Primm Station.
Actually, once the new inspection station opens, avoiding it becomes real simple. From US 95, take NV-164 west to I-15.
Quote from: DesertDog on July 13, 2014, 08:15:56 PM
- US 199 from Grants Pass....ummmmm...Maybe. I don't recall seeing an agriculture station here at the Oregon State line. This would obviously take you to US 101.
There is an agricultural inspection located less than a mile south of the state line... http://goo.gl/maps/RycCy
Typical CA government. When you cross the border into Mexico they ask you if you have any guns. When you cross back into California they ask if you have any fruit. Ha ha.
I know we have a HUGE agriculture economy in California, I would just think the State would invest more tax money into protecting people.
iPhone
A lot of times the smaller stations just aren't staffed--I have driven past the Dorris station (US 97) when it was closed.
Personally, I just wish California would abolish agricultural inspections except for commercial vehicles, as Florida (which also has an enormous fruit-growing sector) has done. I know of no other states that have agricultural inspections, though there are several with large fruit farms, such as Washington state. I cannot believe that the California inspectors head off enough economic harm from agricultural pests to justify the massive inconvenience they create by stopping every single vehicle.
The Yermo station was semi-closed when I went through last month coming back from Vegas on a weekday.
Since the fruit fly days of the 80s, they haven't been near as diligent in making stops. I remember always getting stopped in Yermo or in Blythe. It's rare to even see someone waving cars through these days.
I've read grumblings that the federal CBP likes to use the Needles, Blythe and Winterhaven ag stations as de facto border inspection points. Can anyone confirm?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 14, 2014, 11:14:54 AM
Personally, I just wish California would abolish agricultural inspections except for commercial vehicles, as Florida (which also has an enormous fruit-growing sector) has done. I know of no other states that have agricultural inspections, though there are several with large fruit farms, such as Washington state. I cannot believe that the California inspectors head off enough economic harm from agricultural pests to justify the massive inconvenience they create by stopping every single vehicle.
It's not just agriculture products that they're looking for. For a while, the I-80 and US 395 NB stations heading away from Reno were looking at any watercraft coming in. There had been an uptick in some kind of invasive aquatic life (some kind of mollusk?) that was harming clarity in the Lake Tahoe region, and they were examining incoming watercraft to make sure there were none of the creatures sticking to the hulls.
That said, they could potentially still do away with passenger vehicle inspection unless towing a watercraft or U-Haul...
If you answer yes what do they do? Ask to see all your produce? Lots of people on a long trip might have some bananas, oranges or similar for snacks.
Quote from: roadfro on July 15, 2014, 03:04:32 AMIt's not just agriculture products that they're looking for. For a while, the I-80 and US 395 NB stations heading away from Reno were looking at any watercraft coming in. There had been an uptick in some kind of invasive aquatic life (some kind of mollusk?) that was harming clarity in the Lake Tahoe region, and they were examining incoming watercraft to make sure there were none of the creatures sticking to the hulls.
They have looked for ferrets in the past too. The first detour routes I saw posted on the Web to allow visitors to evade California inspections were for the benefit of ferret owners. I dimly remember that there was a proposition to make ferrets legal in California, but I don't know what became of it.
Quote from: pctech on July 15, 2014, 10:25:15 AMIf you answer yes what do they do? Ask to see all your produce? Lots of people on a long trip might have some bananas, oranges or similar for snacks.
I am pretty sure they are looking just for wholesale fruit and vegetables, not produce that has been through a supermarket distribution channel. This is why I felt comfortable saying "No" to the fruit-and-vegetables question while chewing a carrot, holding the rest of the carrot in my hand, etc.
If you say Yes, they probably ask where you bought the fruit and where you are coming from (to establish whether the point of sale was wholesale or retail and whether the point of origin has a known pest problem), and depending on how you reply, they ask to see it.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on July 14, 2014, 01:05:20 AM
Typical CA government. When you cross the border into Mexico they ask you if you have any guns. When you cross back into California they ask if you have any fruit. Ha ha.
I know we have a HUGE agriculture economy in California, I would just think the State would invest more tax money into protecting people.
iPhone
State Government doesn't deal with the US / Mexico Border, sorry. That is the Federal Government. We have a multi-billion dollar agricultural industry that is separated from the rest of the country by mountains and deserts. That insulation prevents the spread of most pests. Driving them across said barriers could devastate the economy, let alone how much food we produce here. I don't mind the inspection stations. Those stations have been in place now for nearly 100 years and are at least up front about what they are looking for. The ones run by the US Border Patrol, however, should be removed immediately.
Quote from: sdmichael on July 21, 2014, 01:52:56 AMWe have a multi-billion dollar agricultural industry that is separated from the rest of the country by mountains and deserts. That insulation prevents the spread of most pests. Driving them across said barriers could devastate the economy, let alone how much food we produce here. I don't mind the inspection stations. Those stations have been in place now for nearly 100 years and are at least up front about what they are looking for.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. California is not the only US state with a multibillion-dollar agricultural sector; 37 other states have agricultural production figures north of $1 billion. If you define
multibillion strictly as meaning $2 billion or more, 33 states other than California also cross this threshold. Agricultural production in California is valued at $31 billion annually, which is a lot (and indeed number one in the US), but still barely equal to the value of production in the next top two, Texas and Iowa. Meanwhile, California has the most restrictive inspection regime by a wide margin.
The fact that agricultural inspectors have been stopping vehicles for almost a century could just as easily mean that they have an entrenched lobby working for them. It does not mean that they are being deployed in the most efficient or effective way possible, even for defense of native species, which is not an agricultural-protection function
per se but which they seem to have picked up through mission creep.
Has phaseout of every-vehicle inspection been proposed or studied? Or is it just one of those ideas that is drowned in the bathtub before it can be reported on, like building a freeway through Breezewood?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 21, 2014, 04:20:09 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on July 21, 2014, 01:52:56 AMWe have a multi-billion dollar agricultural industry that is separated from the rest of the country by mountains and deserts. That insulation prevents the spread of most pests. Driving them across said barriers could devastate the economy, let alone how much food we produce here. I don't mind the inspection stations. Those stations have been in place now for nearly 100 years and are at least up front about what they are looking for.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. California is not the only US state with a multibillion-dollar agricultural sector; 37 other states have agricultural production figures north of $1 billion. If you define multibillion strictly as meaning $2 billion or more, 33 states other than California also cross this threshold. Agricultural production in California is valued at $31 billion annually, which is a lot (and indeed number one in the US), but still barely equal to the value of production in the next top two, Texas and Iowa. Meanwhile, California has the most restrictive inspection regime by a wide margin.
The fact that agricultural inspectors have been stopping vehicles for almost a century could just as easily mean that they have an entrenched lobby working for them. It does not mean that they are being deployed in the most efficient or effective way possible, even for defense of native species, which is not an agricultural-protection function per se but which they seem to have picked up through mission creep.
Has phaseout of every-vehicle inspection been proposed or studied? Or is it just one of those ideas that is drowned in the bathtub before it can be reported on, like building a freeway through Breezewood?
Perhaps you missed the fact that California agriculture is insulated from the rest of the country by barriers that most pests cannot cross. That is the largest reason for the system that is in place today. Fruit flies can't cross the Mojave or the Sierra Nevada without the help of vehicles taking them across. Most every other state has little to no natural barrier to its agriculture from other states.
FWIW:
QuoteIn 2012, California's 80,500 farms and ranches received $42.6 billion for their output. California remained the number one state in cash farm receipts with 11.3 percent of the US total. The state accounted for 15 percent of national receipts for crops and 7.1 percent of the US revenue for livestock and livestock products. Exports totaled $18.18 billion in value which represents an eight percent increase over the previous year.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/yk)
What I find amusing is going on YouTube and seeing the jerks who make the inspectors lives miserable by quoting the fourth amendment when asked "Do you have any fruits or vegetables?", thus turning a less than 30 second stop into a several minute ordeal.
Doing a quick Google Search found this from Lawlink:
QuoteThe California Department of Agriculture maintains a list of quarantined pests harmful to the agriculture of this state. These pests may be either animal or vegetable. Agricultural Code section 5341 provides: "To prevnt 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." Agricultural Code sections 5344 and 5345 make it unlawful to fail to stop at an inspection station. Agricultural Code section 5346 makes it "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."
What about constitutionality?
QuoteThe 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.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/yj)
And, here is something from the Las Vegas Review Journal:
California inspection station protects agriculture, angers driversQuoteWhen a truck with a boat pulled into the right lane of this high desert outpost's border inspection station, it was literally hands on deck for Greg Du Bose.
And on the sides of the hull, the stern, the intake and exhaust pipes, the outboard motor's propeller and the short ladder next to it.
Du Bose, the station manager, and another inspector had to rub their hands over the boat in their search for tiny, fast-breeding and resilient baby quagga mussels - high on the California Department of Food and Agriculture's most dreaded pest list.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/yi)
Quote from: sdmichael on July 21, 2014, 04:31:36 PMPerhaps you missed the fact that California agriculture is insulated from the rest of the country by barriers that most pests cannot cross. That is the largest reason for the system that is in place today. Fruit flies can't cross the Mojave or the Sierra Nevada without the help of vehicles taking them across. Most every other state has little to no natural barrier to its agriculture from other states.
I didn't miss that part of your post at all. I simply passed over it because, in the absence of additional facts, it seems to work best as an argument for a situation precisely contrary to that which exists: inspections for all vehicles at all states that don't have natural barriers to pests, no inspections in California. But California is the only state that stops all vehicles. Florida, which also has a huge fruit-growing sector, just stops commercial vehicles.
California is also far from alone in having natural barriers to pests--much the same is true of the Willamette Valley in Oregon, for example. Yet Oregon doesn't have anything like the inspection regime California does.
I'm not convinced that California's agricultural sector will even survive the next 50 years. California's natural climate is a desert - the oasis is man-made, and the droughts are just getting worse every year. As a resident of upstate NY, I do NOT want to see water from our (already shrinking) Great Lakes diverted to the west to support farming/cities in the desert that will always be incapable of getting enough water for themselves due to climate.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 21, 2014, 04:20:09 PM
Has phaseout of every-vehicle inspection been proposed or studied? Or is it just one of those ideas that is drowned in the bathtub before it can be reported on, like building a freeway through Breezewood?
Given the fact that California has been rebuilding some stations (including additional lanes and combining the sites with CHP truck inspection stations), I'd say phaseout hasn't really been considered. I-80 @ Truckee was reconstructed in this manner in the mid 2000s, while I-15 @ Yermo is undergoing relocation (closer to NV state line near Primm) and reconstruction now.
Quote from: vdeane on July 21, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
As a resident of upstate NY, I do NOT want to see water from our (already shrinking) Great Lakes diverted to the west to support farming/cities in the desert that will always be incapable of getting enough water for themselves due to climate.
I don't think anybody is seriously considering pumping water from the Great Lakes across the Great Plains and into the desert southwest. That would be an extraordinary proposition with an astronomical price tag. (Just the concept of pumping groundwater from the Great Basin in eastern Nevada/southwest Utah down to Las Vegas, in planning stages, is already expected to cost well north of $1 billion.)
Why don't they add Welcome Centers if they are renovating? It always struck me as strange that CA which has a very big tourism economy doesn't have them at Interstate crossings.
Quote from: roadfro on July 22, 2014, 04:58:10 AMGiven the fact that California has been rebuilding some stations (including additional lanes and combining the sites with CHP truck inspection stations), I'd say phaseout hasn't really been considered. I-80 @ Truckee was reconstructed in this manner in the mid 2000s, while I-15 @ Yermo is undergoing relocation (closer to NV state line near Primm) and reconstruction now.
One of the articles Zloth linked to cites a study done by the California agriculture department that concluded each dollar spent on inspections saves about $14 in crop losses and eradication expenses. This comes closer to an airtight justification for every-vehicle inspection than the natural-barrier argument. However, it overlooks the delay cost of carrying out inspections on heavily traveled corridors such as I-15. It also doesn't directly address any options that may exist for obtaining the same loss avoidance benefits through different approaches to deployment of resources, possibly at less cost to the budget and less economic cost overall.
Quote from: vdeane on July 21, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
I'm not convinced that California's agricultural sector will even survive the next 50 years. California's natural climate is a desert - the oasis is man-made, and the droughts are just getting worse every year. As a resident of upstate NY, I do NOT want to see water from our (already shrinking) Great Lakes diverted to the west to support farming/cities in the desert that will always be incapable of getting enough water for themselves due to climate.
I don't think this could legally happen. There are international treaties that prevent Great Lakes water from being diverted outside of the Great Lakes watershed. Any changes would require approval from the governors of the Great Lakes states, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec, and go through the international treaty ratification process. The only party that would be remotely interested is the US Federal Government. I'm sure all of the governors, premiers, and Canada would be strongly against it.
Heck, there are treaties in place that limit the amount of diversion from Niagara Falls to the adjacent power stations for the sole purpose of preserving the view of the falls for tourists! Like heck Niagara Falls is going to give water to California!
That said, I've only been stopped once at a checkpoint (out of 3 times driving into California). They asked if I had any fresh fruits, where I was headed, and handed me a book of coupons for tourist attractions. This was on a Sunday afternoon, and there was lots of Vegas traffic. A whole bunch of cars ahead of me were waved through, but when the inspector spotted a New York State license plate on my car, he stopped me.
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Entering at I-8 and I-40, the stations were closed and you just drove through.
One of the few exceptions to the watershed rule is for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which causes some Great Lakes water to drain into the Mississippi River.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 05:03:43 PM
but when the inspector spotted a New York State license plate on my car, he stopped me.
Isn't that "discrimination against people who are from out of state"?
Quote
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Odd... maybe it's so that an inspector who's having a bad day only has to deal with people who know what's going on?
Quote
One of the few exceptions to the watershed rule is for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which causes some Great Lakes water to drain into the Mississippi River.
I believe that's the canal that is under watch for the potential of Asian Carp to migrate to the Great Lakes.
I'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US. In this case, it is likely a matter of, "wow, he came all the way from NY, he might have picked up something on his long journey", whereas the majority of those with Cali plates on Sunday on I-15 are coming from Vegas.
The sign on I-80 was a permanent BGS. Probably not the result of one inspector having a bad day, but rather a concerted effort to apply different procedures and/or different levels of screening to visitors vs. returning Californians.
Every pass through an inspection station during my tenure in California last year resulted in no questions - the I-15 one was unmaned each time (3x), the I-10 one was closed as was the I-8 one. What gets me is, there is none on I-5 NB in San Diego. They must think Mexican fruit is good. oh wait... ;)
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 05:03:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 21, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
I'm not convinced that California's agricultural sector will even survive the next 50 years. California's natural climate is a desert - the oasis is man-made, and the droughts are just getting worse every year. As a resident of upstate NY, I do NOT want to see water from our (already shrinking) Great Lakes diverted to the west to support farming/cities in the desert that will always be incapable of getting enough water for themselves due to climate.
I don't think this could legally happen. There are international treaties that prevent Great Lakes water from being diverted outside of the Great Lakes watershed. Any changes would require approval from the governors of the Great Lakes states, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec, and go through the international treaty ratification process. The only party that would be remotely interested is the US Federal Government. I'm sure all of the governors, premiers, and Canada would be strongly against it.
Heck, there are treaties in place that limit the amount of diversion from Niagara Falls to the adjacent power stations for the sole purpose of preserving the view of the falls for tourists! Like heck Niagara Falls is going to give water to California!
That said, I've only been stopped once at a checkpoint (out of 3 times driving into California). They asked if I had any fresh fruits, where I was headed, and handed me a book of coupons for tourist attractions. This was on a Sunday afternoon, and there was lots of Vegas traffic. A whole bunch of cars ahead of me were waved through, but when the inspector spotted a New York State license plate on my car, he stopped me.
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Entering at I-8 and I-40, the stations were closed and you just drove through.
One of the few exceptions to the watershed rule is for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which causes some Great Lakes water to drain into the Mississippi River.
Google "NAWAPA" or "North American Water And Power"... you'd be amazed at what was proposed.
Rode through the one on I-40 yesterday in an AZ plated rental car and was simply waved through with "thank you."
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2014, 07:20:39 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 05:03:43 PM
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Odd... maybe it's so that an inspector who's having a bad day only has to deal with people who know what's going on?
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
I'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US. In this case, it is likely a matter of, "wow, he came all the way from NY, he might have picked up something on his long journey", whereas the majority of those with Cali plates on Sunday on I-15 are coming from Vegas.
The sign on I-80 was a permanent BGS. Probably not the result of one inspector having a bad day, but rather a concerted effort to apply different procedures and/or different levels of screening to visitors vs. returning Californians.
Not sure when you might have gone through the I-80/Truckee Ag inspection station... I've never seen cars split CA versus non-CA plates like this, and the permanent signs for this station simply divide up autos from trucks.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PMI'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US.
I don't think they are, in fact, allowed to discriminate--you don't lose protected-class status when you pass through Customs. Different treatment of arrivals by national origin would be allowed under US anti-discrimination legislation if there were a rational basis for it that meets the strict-scrutiny test. Customs
has been raked over the coals by the Government Accountability Office for subjecting US citizens disproportionately to invasive searches when they are black, female, or both.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
I'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US. In this case, it is likely a matter of, "wow, he came all the way from NY, he might have picked up something on his long journey", whereas the majority of those with Cali plates on Sunday on I-15 are coming from Vegas.
Customs has different entry rules for people based on nationality though. CA doesn't. The rules are the same for everyone, the only think different is how likely they are to be familiar with them.
Quote
The sign on I-80 was a permanent BGS. Probably not the result of one inspector having a bad day, but rather a concerted effort to apply different procedures and/or different levels of screening to visitors vs. returning Californians.
They can always move the inspectors to different booths...
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2014, 04:31:37 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2014, 07:20:39 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 05:03:43 PM
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Odd... maybe it's so that an inspector who's having a bad day only has to deal with people who know what's going on?
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
I'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US. In this case, it is likely a matter of, "wow, he came all the way from NY, he might have picked up something on his long journey", whereas the majority of those with Cali plates on Sunday on I-15 are coming from Vegas.
The sign on I-80 was a permanent BGS. Probably not the result of one inspector having a bad day, but rather a concerted effort to apply different procedures and/or different levels of screening to visitors vs. returning Californians.
Not sure when you might have gone through the I-80/Truckee Ag inspection station... I've never seen cars split CA versus non-CA plates like this, and the permanent signs for this station simply divide up autos from trucks.
12+ years ago.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 24, 2014, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PMI'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US.
I don't think they are, in fact, allowed to discriminate--you don't lose protected-class status when you pass through Customs. Different treatment of arrivals by national origin would be allowed under US anti-discrimination legislation if there were a rational basis for it that meets the strict-scrutiny test. Customs has been raked over the coals by the Government Accountability Office for subjecting US citizens disproportionately to invasive searches when they are black, female, or both.
Someone from Mexico has to be vetted and get a visa (or border crossing card) before they can enter the country, but can enter through primary with the card. Someone from Canada does not need a visa, they just show up at the border, and are processed through primary. Anyone else has to go to secondary to do US Visit. Someone from a visa-waiver country can just show up, get waved to secondary, pay a fee, have prints taken, have photo taken, and be allowed to enter. Someone from Afghanistan must get a visa in advance and do all the US Visit procedures in secondary. Someone tell me how that is not discrimination based on national origin. I would bet large sums of money that the person from Afghanistan who shows up at the border (even with a visa) gets a more thorough check than someone from Norway.
Maybe discrimination wasn't the right word. But they certainly have different procedures that are applied to different nationalities when you enter the country. This seems to be no more or less discrimination than California potentially having a different procedure for California residents vs. non-California residents, based on the license plate.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 24, 2014, 07:49:19 PMSomeone from Mexico has to be vetted and get a visa (or border crossing card) before they can enter the country, but can enter through primary with the card. Someone from Canada does not need a visa, they just show up at the border, and are processed through primary. Anyone else has to go to secondary to do US Visit. Someone from a visa-waiver country can just show up, get waved to secondary, pay a fee, have prints taken, have photo taken, and be allowed to enter. Someone from Afghanistan must get a visa in advance and do all the US Visit procedures in secondary. Someone tell me how that is not discrimination based on national origin. I would bet large sums of money that the person from Afghanistan who shows up at the border (even with a visa) gets a more thorough check than someone from Norway.
That is immigration, not customs, and is probably allowed under the strict-scrutiny test. An example of what would be questionable would be to treat two arrivals from the same visa-waiver country differently because one is black and the other is white.
QuoteMaybe discrimination wasn't the right word. But they certainly have different procedures that are applied to different nationalities when you enter the country. This seems to be no more or less discrimination than California potentially having a different procedure for California residents vs. non-California residents, based on the license plate.
If you treat US citizens that drive cars registered in California differently from US citizens that drive cars registered in other states, that potentially leads to Fourteenth Amendment and full-faith-and-credit problems. The agricultural inspectors may be relying on a rationale (cars foreign to California and the surrounding states being more likely to carry pests) that they think can survive strict scrutiny, but I don't know if that has actually been tested in the courts.
Per the California appellate court decision cited upthread, agricultural inspections are considered analogous to Border Patrol stops, for which the key Supreme Court precedent is
US v. Martinez-Fuerte. The rationale it gives for allowing such stops is an extension of
Terry v. Ohio, which allows so-called "Terry stops," where a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion (a lesser standard than probable cause) may detain someone
briefly for questioning to see if he or she can establish probable cause. Checkpoints are a special case since reasonable suspicion is not required. The checkpoint operators must be non-discriminatory (e.g., stop all vehicles, or stop one in
n vehicles), and cannot use evasion of the checkpoint as probable cause provided the evasion is done by legal means. (The key case for checkpoints other than those operated by the Border Patrol is
Michigan State Police v. Sitz.)
However, the California decision does not amount to a test of the legality of agricultural inspections themselves because it relates only to the narrow issue of whether there was probable cause to arrest a motorist when the agricultural inspectors found marijuana in his vehicle.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 24, 2014, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PMI'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US.
I don't think they are, in fact, allowed to discriminate--you don't lose protected-class status when you pass through Customs. Different treatment of arrivals by national origin would be allowed under US anti-discrimination legislation if there were a rational basis for it that meets the strict-scrutiny test. Customs has been raked over the coals by the Government Accountability Office for subjecting US citizens disproportionately to invasive searches when they are black, female, or both.
Cops aren't
allowed to pull cars over for no reason but if they want to they'll make up one.
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2014, 04:31:37 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2014, 07:20:39 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 05:03:43 PM
I didn't stop at the one on I-80 (I was heading east), but I did notice that they segregated traffic by license plate....California to one side, Out of State to the other.
Odd... maybe it's so that an inspector who's having a bad day only has to deal with people who know what's going on?
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
I'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US. In this case, it is likely a matter of, "wow, he came all the way from NY, he might have picked up something on his long journey", whereas the majority of those with Cali plates on Sunday on I-15 are coming from Vegas.
The sign on I-80 was a permanent BGS. Probably not the result of one inspector having a bad day, but rather a concerted effort to apply different procedures and/or different levels of screening to visitors vs. returning Californians.
Not sure when you might have gone through the I-80/Truckee Ag inspection station... I've never seen cars split CA versus non-CA plates like this, and the permanent signs for this station simply divide up autos from trucks.
I seem to recall at the old Ag station just west of the CA-89 south exit, there was a special lane for Reno/Tahoe traffic. The new station doesn't have such a lane.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 24, 2014, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 24, 2014, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 23, 2014, 08:06:57 PMI'm sure that it works just like customs where they are allowed to discriminate. Customs certainly treats someone from Afghanistan differently than someone from Canada or the US.
I don't think they are, in fact, allowed to discriminate--you don't lose protected-class status when you pass through Customs. Different treatment of arrivals by national origin would be allowed under US anti-discrimination legislation if there were a rational basis for it that meets the strict-scrutiny test. Customs has been raked over the coals by the Government Accountability Office for subjecting US citizens disproportionately to invasive searches when they are black, female, or both.
Someone from Mexico has to be vetted and get a visa (or border crossing card) before they can enter the country
Or they can just walk across the border and the US government won't do anything about it!
The inspection stations are, at least in theory, being used to prevent the importation of empty bottles and cans (http://calrecycle.ca.gov/NewsRoom/2014/01Jan/01.htm) from other states (for example, Nevada, which doesn't charge a deposit) into California for the purpose of collecting the CRV redemption value. If the station agent looks at the back of your truck and sees bags full of empty bottles or cans you'll be required to fill out some paperwork.
There has always been a limit on the amount of recycling material someone with out-of-state plates could collect CRV for at a California recycling center. For aluminum cans I think it used to be 50 pounds. Now it's 25 pounds, and as I have Nevada plates I was specifically asked today at the South Lake Tahoe center, "where did you buy your (roughly 9 pounds of empty) cans?" If I had said anything other than "California" my cans would have been rejected, even though they do all have the "CA CRV" imprint.
You'd think it would be a simple matter to transfer loads of Nevada cans and bottles to a vehicle with California plates before taking them to that South Lake Tahoe station, since the US 50 inspection station is out in Meyers and you don't have to pass through it to get from Nevada to South Lake Tahoe. Nevertheless, South Tahoe Refuse has reportedly seen a large drop in their can and bottle redemptions since the updated regulations took effect.
They seriously enforce the coke can law? California sounds less appealing the more I hear about it.
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2014, 01:06:01 AMThey seriously enforce the coke can law? California sounds less appealing the more I hear about it.
Petty coercion is one of the drawbacks to actually living in a blue state. In California it is probably worse than it would be in, say, New York or Pennsylvania because anyone that moves out of state to escape the red tape will be replaced by more than one new arrival.
If it weren't for property taxes under Proposition 13, I would have moved out of California a long long time ago.
Quote from: DesertDog on July 13, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
Some Arizonans tend to call these check points California Border Patrol.
I've been known to call them that and I'm from the east coast. Google Maps even seems to agree (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9131746,-116.7885878,15z). "Yermo Border Inspection Station". :awesomeface:
As for my two experiences driving into California, both involved me simply being waved through without a word. One was on I-15, with Connecticut plates. The other was on I-8, in a rental with California plates.
The one time I drove out of California, on I-40, I noted a bit of a line head into the inspection station, but I was going the other way so I just sped on by.
I can see where the I-40 checkpoint would see more heavy use since that section of I-40 has a lot of truck traffic but relatively little car traffic. So, more trucks to check, and less of a traffic jam caused by doing so.