Favorite and least favorite US- Canada Border Crossings

[J N Winkler]

These conversations with agricultural inspectors sound much longer than any I have ever had.  The longest was on I-80 near Truckee when I was returning to Sacramento, having taken a scenic drive on Calif. 70 without once leaving California.  "Where did you come from?"  "Sacramento."  "Pardon?"  "Sacramento."  "Say again?"  "SACRAMENTO."  Eventually he asked me to open my trunk, looked in, found nothing whatever of interest, and eventually handed me a worthless piece of yellow paper which looked like it was supposed to act as evidence of prior inspection if I ever had to route through an agricultural inspection station without having previously left California, only there was no apparent reason for me to believe I wouldn't be inspected again anyway.

I hate agricultural inspection stations.

[J N Winkler]

But either way, anyone that gets caught by the Border Patrol at a bus station in Maryland has only themselves to blame, since I don't think anyone is obligated to answer their questions at "inland" locations.

I don't think that is actually true except in cases where the interaction is being videotaped, which prevents Border Patrol officers from lying about whether the initial interview turned up facts that reasonably led to individualized suspicion.

[kphoger]

I will say that living in Arizona and having to put up with internal checkpoints (you want to have a nice talk about unconstitutionality....I have no idea why those things are legal) has helped my confidence level when dealing with authority in the car, so I'd bet I'm even less likely to get secondary than I was prior anyway.

I think they rely on two things:  federal statutes providing for suspicionless search within 100 miles of the border, and US v. Martinez-Fuerte.  There is an interesting summary of the jurisprudence here:

http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2012/10/update-on-border-patrol-lawsuit.html

Apparently they are not allowed to detain you for longer than two minutes, and are allowed to ask immigration-related questions only, which you have the option of not answering, and they cannot use your refusal to answer to build suspicion for further search.  So if you want to buck them, and have the time and resource to handle the aggravation that will follow, you can--but since any sanctions that may be applied to them for overreaching their authority will be backloaded and will not fall on the officers involved personally, it'd be one hell of a ride for the sake of principle.

If you do some Google searching to read stories of people who've actually attempted to buck them, however, you'll find it's only too easy for the inspection agent to claim that a drug-sniffing dog made an "indication" toward your vehicle, and then they're free to detain you–whether or not the dog actually did any such thing.

There was a pastor a few years ago who decided to start refusing to answer the officers whenever they asked his citizenship.  Most times, they just let him through anyway.  One time, however, they broke his windows in and physically abused him.  Granted, he refused to answer the permitted question, but I still have mixed feelings about the whole checkpoint thing.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/04/pastor_tased_and_beaten_at_che.php

[vdeane]

I'm surprised the agricultural stations are around - they would appear to be illegal under the interstate commerce clause, which the government typically tries to claim as much power as they can under (especially since there's essentially no such thing as intrastate commerce any more).

On the electronics, I'm mostly afraid of the scenario where customs has been known to seize a laptop for a month and dissect it.

[SP Cook]

Ag inspection stations are predicated on health.  The Commerce Clause applies to taxation.  A state cannot have tax barriers against other state's products.

I got Ag inspected, in a rental car with Cal tags coming back from Reno into California.  It was the middle of winter and no fruit flies could posibably be alive if I had any in the car once I rolled the window down.  Figured it was just some wanna-be copette. 

I have also been ag inspected going into (by the state/commonwealth) and back out of (by the USDA) both Hawaii and Puerto Rico (at the airport, of course).  These were serious inspections, you pretty much are not suppose to bring anything that ever was alive into or out of either jurisdiction.

[vdeane]

I'm pretty sure the commerce clause essentially says "states do not have the power to enact any regulation of any kind concerning interstate commerce".  Basically it's what prevents the states from acting like sovereign nations.  Otherwise, what prevents states from making people go through customs whenever crossing a state border as long as they don't charge import duties?

[kkt]

I'm pretty sure the commerce clause essentially says "states do not have the power to enact any regulation of any kind concerning interstate commerce".  Basically it's what prevents the states from acting like sovereign nations.  Otherwise, what prevents states from making people go through customs whenever crossing a state border as long as they don't charge import duties?

The interstate commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and between states and foreign countries.  It doesn't mean states can't ban certain things and enforce that ban with inspection stations, it just means Congress can make laws that supersede the state on matters of interstate commerce.  Congress probably has never seen a good reason to stop agricultural inspections.  They are protecting a huge agricultural industry.  California isn't the only state that has them.  Hawaii does, I understand Florida does.  Basically, anywhere there's a large agricultural business that could be threatened by pests that thrive outside that state.

[oscar]

I'm pretty sure the commerce clause essentially says "states do not have the power to enact any regulation of any kind concerning interstate commerce".  Basically it's what prevents the states from acting like sovereign nations.  Otherwise, what prevents states from making people go through customs whenever crossing a state border as long as they don't charge import duties?

The interstate commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and between states and foreign countries.  It doesn't mean states can't ban certain things and enforce that ban with inspection stations, it just means Congress can make laws that supersede the state on matters of interstate commerce.  Congress probably has never seen a good reason to stop agricultural inspections.  They are protecting a huge agricultural industry.  California isn't the only state that has them.  Hawaii does, I understand Florida does.  Basically, anywhere there's a large agricultural business that could be threatened by pests that thrive outside that state.

In addition to the states not being able to cross up Congress' regulation of interstate commerce, there are "dormant Commerce Clause" restrictions on what states can do w/r/t interstate commerce even where Congress hasn't spoken.  But those limits focus on unreasonable discrimination against out-of-state commerce, or unreasonable preferences for local businesses.  For example, an Illinois case where the state tried to force all truckers passing through the state to use a particular type of mud flap manufactured only in Illinois.  That law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  But ag inspections just don't raise that kind of concern. 

[myosh_tino]

These conversations with agricultural inspectors sound much longer than any I have ever had.  The longest was on I-80 near Truckee when I was returning to Sacramento, having taken a scenic drive on Calif. 70 without once leaving California.  "Where did you come from?"  "Sacramento."  "Pardon?"  "Sacramento."  "Say again?"  "SACRAMENTO."  Eventually he asked me to open my trunk, looked in, found nothing whatever of interest, and eventually handed me a worthless piece of yellow paper which looked like it was supposed to act as evidence of prior inspection if I ever had to route through an agricultural inspection station without having previously left California, only there was no apparent reason for me to believe I wouldn't be inspected again anyway.

I hate agricultural inspection stations.

Hmmm... I suspect this happen quite a few years ago when the inspection station was located just west of the CA-89 south interchange in Truckee.  That inspection station has been moved to where the truck scales are located a couple of miles east of Truckee thus reducing the chance that someone traveling within the state of California will encounter the inspection station.

[J N Winkler]

Hmmm... I suspect this happen quite a few years ago when the inspection station was located just west of the CA-89 south interchange in Truckee.  That inspection station has been moved to where the truck scales are located a couple of miles east of Truckee thus reducing the chance that someone traveling within the state of California will encounter the inspection station.

Yes--this incident happened in September 2002, a few years before the reconstruction of I-80 from the Donner Pass westward kicked into high gear.  It is good to hear that the inspection station has been shifted from that really awkward location.

[kphoger]

I'm pretty sure the commerce clause essentially says "states do not have the power to enact any regulation of any kind concerning interstate commerce".  Basically it's what prevents the states from acting like sovereign nations.  Otherwise, what prevents states from making people go through customs whenever crossing a state border as long as they don't charge import duties?

The interstate commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and between states and foreign countries.  It doesn't mean states can't ban certain things and enforce that ban with inspection stations, it just means Congress can make laws that supersede the state on matters of interstate commerce.  Congress probably has never seen a good reason to stop agricultural inspections.  They are protecting a huge agricultural industry.  California isn't the only state that has them.  Hawaii does, I understand Florida does.  Basically, anywhere there's a large agricultural business that could be threatened by pests that thrive outside that state.

During the Dust Bowl, Los Angeles police chief James Davis sent 136 police officers to the Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon state lines; had them deputized by the respective county sheriffs; and ordered them to refuse entry to migrants with "no visible means of support".  This was called the Bum Blockade.  The LA Evening News, however, decried it as "[violating] every principle that Americans hold dear [...] the right of every citizen to go wherever he pleased".  When the blockade was challenged politically, it was upheld by Gov. Frank Merriam.  Eventually, however, the funding for the program was called into question, and it ceased.

Various counties, however, continued to apprehend people who assisted destitute relatives across the state line–based on the Indigent Act, which prohibited bringing poor people into the state.  This was then challenged by the ACLU, who brought it to the US Supreme Court; the Court ruled it unconstitutional (Edwards v California, 1941), that it violated Article 1, Section 8.  In the ruling, Chief Justice Byrnes stated that transporting people across a state line counts as commerce, and therefore any state restricting it necessarily creates "an unconstitutional barrier to interstate commerce".  The other justices were bothered by the notion that transporting a person could be considered commerce, stating instead that freedom to travel across state lines is an "implied" right of US citizens, and therefore deserves equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

[vdeane]

One thing that's interesting them is that they require all traffic to exit the main highway.  Since everyone stops at them, why not build them directly on the carriageway?  And why have them inland, where people can just go around them easily on local roads?  You'd think they'd have them at the border, just like US federal customs (since they really are nothing more than California customs).

I would think of a ban as "regulating interstate commerce".

[kkt]

One thing that's interesting them is that they require all traffic to exit the main highway.  Since everyone stops at them, why not build them directly on the carriageway?  And why have them inland, where people can just go around them easily on local roads?  You'd think they'd have them at the border, just like US federal customs (since they really are nothing more than California customs).

The one on I-5 entering California from Oregon is directly on the freeway, and several of the California inspection stations have been moved closer to the border than they were previously.  I'm sure they figure they can't stop every single person and some will get through by accident, but how many will take some National Forest dirt road just to bring fruit into California?

It's not customs, because they don't collect import duties there.  From m-w.com under "custom", definition 2.a.: duties, tolls, or imposts imposed by the sovereign law of a country on imports or exports.

I would think of a ban as "regulating interstate commerce".

Like I tried to say, states can ban things and the ban is legal unless the U.S. Congress makes a federal law overruling it.  Just like the Federal government has the power to tax, but that doesn't mean state governments can't also tax.

I see no reason Congress would want to overturn state bans protecting their agriculture.  If California were taxing imports instead of banning produce that's likely to be infected, it would have been struck down by the courts by now.

[agentsteel53]

Since everyone stops at them, why not build them directly on the carriageway?

easier to close them, either temporarily or permanently

[1995hoo]

Then there's one thing that states ARE explicitly allowed to regulate: alcoholic beverages. The Twenty-First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." It's the "in violation of the laws thereof" that's the key in this respect. The Virginia ABC, for one, used to have agents spying on liquor stores in DC and Maryland watching for Virginia residents because Virginia law limited you to bringing in one gallon of liquor from outside the state. (I believe the law still uses the antiquated term "gallon" even though liquor is sold by the litre, or fraction or multiple thereof, these days.) If they saw you buy what looked like more than a gallon, they radioed ahead and had someone pull you over after you crossed the state line.

More recently the Supreme Court has held that the Dormant Commerce Clause (prohibition on discriminating against interstate commerce) does apply to Twenty-First Amendment issues–some state got sued for allowing in-state wineries to ship to in-state residents while prohibiting out-of-state wineries from doing the same. The Supreme Court reasoned that states had never been allowed to discriminate against interstate commerce before and so the Twenty-First Amendment didn't change that. Of course, the potential unintended consequence is that a state might just prohibit all such shipping. Wine-shipping laws are a crazy quilt all over the country.

I recall reading somewhere that US Customs will enforce the law of the state in which you enter the USA, although in my experience they'd never bothered because (I assume) they didn't want to bother with forms and paperwork. We brought back substantial amounts of Canadian wine and liquor on our last trip to Nova Scotia, declared all of it on the form handed out on the ferry, and the Customs inspector paid no attention to that and was more interested in our golf raingear.

[myosh_tino]

Hmmm... I suspect this happen quite a few years ago when the inspection station was located just west of the CA-89 south interchange in Truckee.  That inspection station has been moved to where the truck scales are located a couple of miles east of Truckee thus reducing the chance that someone traveling within the state of California will encounter the inspection station.

Yes--this incident happened in September 2002, a few years before the reconstruction of I-80 from the Donner Pass westward kicked into high gear.  It is good to hear that the inspection station has been shifted from that really awkward location.

Especially since it was really easy to avoid.  Just take the CA-89 South exit, go north to Donner Pass Road, make a left and rejoin I-80 in a mile or so.

[SP Cook]

Then there's one thing that states ARE explicitly allowed to regulate: alcoholic beverages.

More recently the Supreme Court has held that the Dormant Commerce Clause (prohibition on discriminating against interstate commerce) does apply to Twenty-First Amendment issues—some state got sued for allowing in-state wineries to ship to in-state residents while prohibiting out-of-state wineries from doing the same. The Supreme Court reasoned that states had never been allowed to discriminate against interstate commerce before and so the Twenty-First Amendment didn't change that. Of course, the potential unintended consequence is that a state might just prohibit all such shipping. Wine-shipping laws are a crazy quilt all over the country.

In my state the ABC responded by imposing a $500/year fee (tax) on every wine shipper.  Neutral on its face, exept that all of the wine produced here wouldn't fill a single backyard swimming pool.  Most wine shippers pay up, but more than once I have had to explain to clerks in California that West Virginia is a totally different jurisdiction than Virginia (which totally prohibits wine shipping).  I also heard a clerk one time telling a woman she could not ship "out of the country".  The woman was from New Mexico.  My 3rd grade teacher taught us all of the states and state capitals.  Third grade.

[1995hoo]

Virginia doesn't prohibit wine shipping. I've had wine shipped to my house many times. I think there may be registration requirements, however.

[thenetwork]

Virginia doesn't prohibit wine shipping. I've had wine shipped to my house many times. I think there may be registration requirements, however.

In Colorado, the wineries along I-70 will have lists that tell travelers what states they can ship wine to and which ones they can't.   One of the few weird alcohol rules left in the state.  The other major one is that all grocery stores/convenience stores are only permitted to carry beer -- and only 3.2 (near) beer. 

However, if you own multiple grocery/convenience stores in Colorado (like Safeway), only ONE of your stores can be a full-service liquor store, where you can sell full strength beer, wine spirits.

[A.J. Bertin]

This is why it's likely I will never, ever get to visit Canada. Usually when I'm traveling I have a laptop, a netbook, an iPad, an iPhone, my work cellphone, an iPod Touch, an iPod classic, at least two digital cameras, a video camera and a radar detector. The border patrol would have a field day with me.

Geez... couldn't you travel to Canada strictly for pleasure and leave some of that stuff at home? And when you're traveling, is it super necessary to have ALL those things? I can't believe that someone would choose not to visit a great country such as Canada just because they think they can't visit without bringing all that technology.

[agentsteel53]

This is why it's likely I will never, ever get to visit Canada. Usually when I'm traveling I have a laptop, a netbook, an iPad, an iPhone, my work cellphone, an iPod Touch, an iPod classic, at least two digital cameras, a video camera and a radar detector. The border patrol would have a field day with me.

good grief, what are you - an Apple salesman?? 

I thought I traveled heavy with one camera bag (SLR and lenses), laptop (sometimes), iphone, ipod, the necessary chargers and car adapters - and that's about it.

[agentsteel53]

We brought back substantial amounts of Canadian wine and liquor on our last trip to Nova Scotia, declared all of it on the form handed out on the ferry, and the Customs inspector paid no attention to that and was more interested in our golf raingear.

at one point, three of us brought back about 4.25 or 4.5L of tequila from Mexico*, and when they asked "how much" I just waved at the back seat and said "that much".  they didn't seem to care.

* there's a really good tequila store in Ensenada with the best selection I've ever seen

[vdeane]

The one on I-5 entering California from Oregon is directly on the freeway, and several of the California inspection stations have been moved closer to the border than they were previously.  I'm sure they figure they can't stop every single person and some will get through by accident, but how many will take some National Forest dirt road just to bring fruit into California?

On Google it shows up like a service area with a re-striping.  However, there is older imagery from before the re-striping; looks like the inspection stations were truck-only just a few years ago.

It's not customs, because they don't collect import duties there.  From m-w.com under "custom", definition 2.a.: duties, tolls, or imposts imposed by the sovereign law of a country on imports or exports.

Lets see, you have to tell them where you're coming from/going to, declare certain items, surrender prohibited goods, and can be searched.  Sure sounds like customs, even if they don't fit the exact definition.

Since everyone stops at them, why not build them directly on the carriageway?

easier to close them, either temporarily or permanently

Under what circumstances are they closed?  I was under the impression they were permanent.

[agentsteel53]

Under what circumstances are they closed?  I was under the impression they were permanent.

the 80 example: the station was closed, and a new one opened at a different location.  if the booths were on the mainline, then mainline traffic would have had to have been detoured while they were removed.

[kkt]

The one on I-5 entering California from Oregon is directly on the freeway, and several of the California inspection stations have been moved closer to the border than they were previously.  I'm sure they figure they can't stop every single person and some will get through by accident, but how many will take some National Forest dirt road just to bring fruit into California?

On Google it shows up like a service area with a re-striping.  However, there is older imagery from before the re-striping; looks like the inspection stations were truck-only just a few years ago.

Cars have had to stop for ag inspection as far back as I remember, at least back to the late 1960s from my own memories.  My parents also remember having to stop from their childhoods.  There have been some changes, the place where the inspection occurs used to be farther south, allowing the stop to be lower down in the foothills where the highway is more likely to be out of the snow, and where it's more pleasant to work in a little booth in the winter.

It's not customs, because they don't collect import duties there.  From m-w.com under "custom", definition 2.a.: duties, tolls, or imposts imposed by the sovereign law of a country on imports or exports.

Lets see, you have to tell them where you're coming from/going to, declare certain items, surrender prohibited goods, and can be searched.  Sure sounds like customs, even if they don't fit the exact definition.

Since everyone stops at them, why not build them directly on the carriageway?

easier to close them, either temporarily or permanently

Under what circumstances are they closed?  I was under the impression they were permanent.

They're pretty much always open.  Maybe they close for severe storms when they don't want the inspectors to have to drive to work?