After extensive research (as well as the obvious in the 4th Amendment) it is clear that one can refuse any type of consent to a search by any ag station, inland border checkpoint, or other random stops which serve as 'inspections'. SCOTUS has ruled that unless these stations (inland border, roving border, and otherwise) have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that you're guilty of a crime then they have no right to search your vehicle. However ag inspections fall into a gray area which case law may allow forced inspections whether or not you approve (if you want to enter the state). This is in reference to a case out of Hawaii which is outlined further below.
I read the cases posted by NavyMike earlier as well as an exhaustive posting of 34 pages of links to 4th Amendment cases:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/01-search-and-seizure.html
I'll be quoting from many of the cases that I read but if anyone wants me to dig up a particular case I'll do so and post it as a follow-up.
THIS is the only question that I have in mind when it comes to these ag stations: Can California refuse entry simply on the basis of refused inspection, when lacking any sort of evidence that you're carrying a quarantined product? The Hawaii case, People v. Dickinson, seems to indicate that they can keep you out if you don't submit to their forced search. That's my question in all of this.
To be clear, SCOTUS has branded these as seizure roadblocks which are set up for the purposes of administrative inspections. They consider them minor inconveniences whose purpose is greater than an individual's right to a minor delay and questioning.
I read an interesting case which was decided by a California appellate court. A Mexican national was at the ag station, questioned, and released by the ag officer. But a Border Patrol agent was listening to the questioning while observing the driver and stepped in to ask further questions 'based on his personal experience' which included the fact that the driver wouldn't look him in the eye and was very nervous in addition to speaking very little English. His car had California plates.
He asked him to pull aside and learned he was a Green Card Mexican national. He held his green card and asked him to open his trunk, which the driver did. He observed a large speaker box and asked for permission to let a dog search the vehicle. Once the driver agreed he was given his Green Card back. The speaker box was full of drugs and cash.
Driver was arrested and prosecuted. Appellate court reversed the decision due to lack of a warning sign that there'd be immigration inquiries at the ag checkpoint as well as the agent having no articulable probable cause, adding that the driver had no reason to believe that he was free to go at any time while this was happening (the agent was holding his Green Card). One of the agent's reasons for inspection was that the car had a trunk large enough to conceal an illegal LOL and the fact that no luggage could be seen inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
The driver went free.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/28/817.html
SCOTUS has ruled the same with the roving border checkpoints as well as the temporary fixed immigration stations along the interstates. They are allowed to circle dogs around your vehicle and ask you questions but you are under no obligation to answer them nor submit to a search. Short of RAS they are violating the law if they hold or arrest you or search your vehicle at one of these checkpoints. The fact that you are nervous, speak little English, or other seemingly incriminating factors may NOT be sufficient RAS to search your vehicle.
California law states ONLY that you are to answer questions and submit to an inspection if you have ag materials on board. If you tell them NO and they see no ag products then they have no RAS to force a search. Can they detain you for this? SCOTUS seems to make it clear that they CANNOT. However the courts have ruled that ag quarantine inspections do not require warrants, as I'll outline further below.
As outlined in an immigration checkpoint case, United States vs. Ortiz, SCOTUS ruled,
This degree of discretion to search private automobiles is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. A search, even of an automobile, is a substantial invasion of privacy. [Footnote 2] To protect that privacy from official arbitrariness, the Court always has regarded probable cause as the minimum requirement for a lawful search. Almeida-Sanchez, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 269-270; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 399 U. S. 51 (1970). We are not persuaded that the differences between roving patrols and traffic checkpoints justify dispensing in this case with the safeguards we required in Almeida-Sanchez. We therefore follow that decision and hold that, at traffic checkpoints removed from the border and its functional equivalents,
Page 422 U. S. 897
officers may not search private vehicles without consent or probable cause. [Footnote 3]
The Government lists in its reply brief some of the factors on which officers have relied in deciding which cars to search. They include the number of persons in a vehicle, the appearance and behavior of the driver and passengers, their inability to speak English, the responses they give to officers' questions, the nature of the vehicle, and indications that it may be heavily loaded. All of these factors properly may be taken into account in deciding whether there is probable cause to search a particular vehicle. In addition, as we note today in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, ante at 422 U. S. 884-885, the officers are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from these facts in light of their knowledge of the area and their prior experience with aliens and smugglers. In this case, however, the officers advanced no special reasons for believing respondent's vehicle contained
Page 422 U. S. 898
aliens. The absence of probable cause makes the search invalid.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/891/case.html
The same reasoning would seem to be applicable to ag checkpoints. However that's not truly set in stone.
In the cases outlined by NavyMike, they all involved marijuana seizures. The first was luggage being searched for ag products when leaving Hawaii for the mainland. Drugs were discovered inside the bags. The USDA had ordered the quarantine inspections. The courts ruled that warrants would be unpractical because the evidence would be gone in moments as the flight left the ground and that it would be unfeasible to get a warrant for each passenger. The same is held with the highway ag inspection stations.
The next two cases given by NavyMike involved drivers going though the ag stations and voluntarily complying to searches 'because they felt they had no choice'. The agents observed packaged marijuana and let them pass through the stations. They then alerted police and police stopped and arrested them. Because they consented there was no question of illegal search.
The court in the latter case cited the Hawaii case and stated that warrants were not needed for ag searches, but added that they were not fully deciding that question because the accused voluntarily opened his trunk:
If the motorist voluntarily opens the trunk of the vehicle, the quarantine officer may look therein and, as here, remove any plant materials in plain view for further inspection. We do not address the full scope of search which may be available for quarantine purposes as that is unnecessary to our decision. fn. 1 We also do not decide anything concerning the refusal to allow search for that is not the case before us.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/104/505.html
In the case in the video, the follow-up video states that the police report made no mention of the driver leaving the ag station without permission. NONE. It seems that the case clearly has to be thrown out, and in fact the cases that hit the higher courts all seem to involve drug busts as a result of the inspections.
There's more but this is food for thought and discussion. I highly doubt that any prosecution will take place and if it does it'll surely be overturned by higher courts, should there be a conviction. I also believe the state will be paying damages for its overt conduct regarding this seizure.
So, can California refuse entry because we refuse to a search that lacks RAS? I highly doubt it, despite their statute stating otherwise, but the courts have ruled that there is no RAS needed when it comes to ag inspections. It would seem that all any traveler would have to do would be to lie about what's on board and then hide the evidence from plain view. The fact that you have a cooler, out-of-state plates, bugs on your windshield, or anything else, should be of little general consequence.
