Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: General RVing Issues: Trouble with California
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > Trouble with California

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 29  
Prev  |  Next
Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 06:49pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

...every lawyer in the USA disagrees with you...


[emoticon][emoticon][emoticon][emoticon][emoticon][emoticon]

That will send the judge rolling on the floor if he hears this. This is worst than pounding the table when your law is weak defense.

And you won't even be giving my lawyer brother, who actually agreed with me on the "vehicle exception" cases, to defend me.

Nuts!

PS - BTW, I'm a bit disappointed you did not use (what you thought are) big words in your latest post. You are slacking!



What happen to your theory here YS? Didn't work out too well did it? [emoticon]

Maybe you or your brother lawyer can learn something from this guy? I don't have high hopes but you never know?


~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~


"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."- Abraham Lincoln


EgorKC

Kansas

Senior Member

Joined: 01/13/2007

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 06:52pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Wait for a few minutes please. I gotta pop more popcorn as this is getting good. [emoticon]


You cannot stop growing old but you don't have to grow up. ">
Chef/Pilot
DW/Navigator
2 Sons, 1 DIL, 3 Grandsons, 1 Granddaughter. Boz the cat">
2012 F350 XLT 6.7 Powerstroke 4X4 SWD Crewcab.
2012 Wildcat 313RE-OK

lakeside013104

North America

Senior Member

Joined: 07/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 07:43pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

JRscooby wrote:

lakeside013104 wrote:




EVERY traffic stop has the potential to turn ugly.


This is true, and IMHO, a very good reason to not do stops without knowing somebody is likely doing wrong.

Quote:

and often the reason why deadly force is perceived to be the only option to ensure that the Officer gets home to their family at the end of their shift.


This statement is a major part of the problem. Why is it more important for the cop, compared to any other person, to get home safe?
And if a LEO stops you it is dangerous to assert your rights at the scene. But, it has been proven that a very small percentage of police abuse of power will be punished, even when reported. So every time a "law abiding citizen" accepts a abuse of his rights he gives a paranoid reinforcement that he is all powerful.


Not just about the Officer, JR.

Had you read and digested the remainder of my statement, you would have noticed the part: "is better for all parties involved and allows for calmer and cooler decisions to be made by all evolved"

Meaning EVERYONE gets to go home to their families. There are two parties or two parts to every story. Having a bad attitude at a traffic stop could be the beginning of a very bad ending whether that be an Agi inspection or any other enforcement action.

Basically goes back to showing 'respect' for authority. If a person has never been taught this simple concept, very few learn it on their own.

It was the OP er's decision to stir the pot at an Agi inspection. Other than being able to pat their-self on the back for being disrespectful, nothing positive was gained. Interesting outlook about life if one feels the need to 'prove' themselves at every precised threat.

Lakeside

lakeside013104

North America

Senior Member

Joined: 07/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 07:56pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:








As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.[emoticon][emoticon]


SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 08:39pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

lakeside013104 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:








As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.[emoticon][emoticon]


SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside


Thanks! I can't really understand why anyone can't understand that very simple statement and would want to paint a paranoid worst-case scenario and "giving up rights" on the particular decided Supreme Court decision.

You can even Google automobile exception and it will give you the list of cases and on top the Supreme Court opinion.

Blazing Zippers

North Idaho

Senior Member

Joined: 12/02/2010

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 10:15pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I was stopped for going just a "little" over the speed limit about a year ago. I even got a "driving award" in the process.
After the trooper identified himself, I promptly told him that I had a gun in the console. The trooper asked if I had a CCW and if the weapon was legal (he hadn't run my name yet). I said "YEP, but these aren't my pants." We both laughed, he scratched out a paper while I felt stupid about getting caught, and we both "went home safely."
See? Simple!
If anyone doesn't get the "these aren't my pants," watch Live PD or Cops.
Maybe if we just all got along instead of being wadded up, our lives, country, and world would be better.

lakeside013104

North America

Senior Member

Joined: 07/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/20/20 04:04am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

lakeside013104 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:








As to your insistence of the paranoid phrase of "giving up your rights", it actually called and Supreme Court uphold "automobile exception" search of vehicle for probable cause in which a LEO is given wide latitude.

.[emoticon][emoticon]


SAM1, your statement is factual, accurate, and to the point.

Thanks for your input.

Lakeside


Thanks! I can't really understand why anyone can't understand that very simple statement and would want to paint a paranoid worst-case scenario and "giving up rights" on the particular decided Supreme Court decision.

You can even Google automobile exception and it will give you the list of cases and on top the Supreme Court opinion.


My career choice required me to study and pass Constitutional Law, especially related to the 4th Amendment. The 'mobile conveyance' exception is exactly as you stated.

Another exception to the 4th Amendment that I found very interesting was the section related to the 'free air sniff' by a trained K9. Again this law was challenged and ended up with a Supreme court ruling. The short story is that walking a trained K9 around the outside of a mobile conveyance is perfectly legal and if the K9 alerts, the fun begins when the driver refuses to give consent for a vehicle search. Sorry pal, after a 'trained and certified' K9 alert to the exterior of your vehicle, your vehicle will be searched regardless of your protests.

Interesting read.

Lakeside

am1958

SE Michigan

Senior Member

Joined: 04/10/2014

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/20/20 06:49am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

It's absolutely amazing to me how you cannot discern the difference between a Law Enforcement Officer who operates under the Supreme Court's ruling requiring RAS to allow them to search a vehicle without a warrant - and yes, a trained sniffer dog alerting on the outside of your car gives them RAS - and an agricultural worker whose desire to search your vehicle is not under that same umbrella. The agricultural worker may ask to search and you can simply say no and drive off from whence you came. He has no power to search.

In order to put this to bed I give you this:-

Quote:

What Legal Authority do your inspectors have to stop and check my vehicle?

The Department’s legal authority for conducting vehicle and commodity inspections lies in the California Food and Agricultural Code, specifically Sections 5341-5353 and 6301-6465. Although submitting to inspection is voluntary, vehicle and commodities are not allowed to enter until released by an inspector.


Highlighting added by me to make sure you don't skip over it...

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders_faq.html

So, the California Department of Food and Agriculture's own web site, (you know, the very people who run the inspection stations), is telling you you are wrong but somehow I get the feeling that won't sway you either...

[image]

navegator

San Diego CA.

Senior Member

Joined: 11/17/2011

View Profile





Offline
Posted: 01/20/20 09:55am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

It is not a question of the 4th amendment being violated by the agriculture inspectors, it is a question of how many millions of dollars in damage and erradication of a pest brought in from another state.

Some years ago someone imported by ignorance or intent a fruit fly to San Diego, it nearlly devastated the orange groves and the owners took a hit with fruit that could not be sold or eaten, then came the cost of trying to eradicate this pest it amounted to several millions, and it is still on going today.

It is very easy to forget if there are fruits in the galley or fridge in an RV, it happened to us coming back from Texas, we had 2 peaches left from El Paso, grown in California and purchased in El Paso, at the inspection station I answered I do not remember if we ate them all or not, the inspector asked if he could come aboard and look we both answered go ahead, the fruit was in a basket in a corner all forgoten, we were given the choise of eating the culprits or disposing off them, we chose to eat tnem, and we were on ower way.

Maybe the persons that get all huffy and puffy at an agriculture inspection would like to pay some of the growers for the loss and the State for the eradication programs instead of the tax payers?

navegator

am1958

SE Michigan

Senior Member

Joined: 04/10/2014

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/20/20 11:38am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Navegator:

My issue isn't with the inspections but rather ridiculous statements such as "You gave up your right when you purchased a vehicle" which is patently untrue.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 29  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > Trouble with California
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.