In an enraging display of government double-speak, disregard for the Constitution, and deflection of personal responsibility by police and other state enforcers, a California family was arrested and their child was kidnapped for standing up for their right to be secure in their persons and property last month.
Video posted to social media Wednesday details the experience of the Feinman Family as they were accosted at a draconian “agricultural inspection” checkpoint on Highway 395N in Long Valley between California and Nevada.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture operates 16 such agriculture inspection stationsthat are located along the major highways that enter the state for the stated purpose of “helping the Governor and Legislature ensure delivery of safe food and fiber through responsible environmental stewardship in a fair marketplace for all Californians.”
The footage begins with the family making its way through the checkpoint to sounds of a state agricultural officer asking, “where ya coming from?” before Mr. Feinman asserts that his family “don’t answer questions” and will be on their way.
“You’re gonna go?” the Ag officer asks. “This is just an agricultural inspection, I’m wondering where you are traveling from?”
Mr. Feinman rightly tells the man that its “none of his business” where his family was traveling from and the officer radios his partner or superior for help, and says he needs to know if the family has “any agricultural articles on board.”
Enter Ag officer “Stacy” and her Orwellian double-speak.
“If you keep driving, I will contact the authorities and have them bring you back to the facility,” the woman says. “We need to conduct an inspection on the vehicle.”
“Do you have a warrant?” Mr. Feinman asks. “Cause you’re not inspecting anything without a warrant. Do you know the Fourth Amendment? I’m free from warrantless searches.”
“I don’t need a warrant, there is no search here,” Stacy says as she attempts to perform linguistic gymnastics. “You’re speaking of an Amendment that classifies searches. We are not searching. [It’s] an inspection. The conveyance needs to be inspected for agricultural hosts.”
“So what part of the vehicle are you planning to inspect?” Feinman asks.
“We need to inspect the vehicle in the back and any ice-chests you may have on board,” Stacy responds.
“Oh, so you mean inside? That’s a search,” Feinman asserts – To which the officer unbelievably states again, “It’s not a search, it is an inspection.”
“That’s exactly what a search is,” Feinman says bringing up the Fourth Amendment again. “Don’t you understand the Bill of Rights?”
Stacy stands dumbfounded for several seconds before saying, “I’m not going to engage in this with you. I never said the word search. You’re talking about something other than the Fourth Amendment.”
Feinman then precedes to deconstruct the woman’s argument before asking if his family is free to go.
Stacy tells the man that he isn’t free to go and Feinman asks if he is being detained before the officer tells him “he” is free to go but his “conveyance” is not.
Feinman then asks the officer to differentiate between what a “search” and an “inspection” is before she fails to make any distinction saying, “I don’t have a definition of a search,” and reasserts, “I don’t search, I inspect.”
“So you think that word frees you from your obligations to the Constitution?” Feinman asks.
“I’m not really sure what your question is,” Stacy says, and Feinman reads her the text of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution which says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Ag officer then cites that “the initial contact” officers had with the Feinman family, coupled with the fact that he had “a number of insects on the front of [his] vehicle,” indicated that the family may have been coming from some where that might be of concern.
Feinman continues to stand up for his Constitutional rights and leaves the warrantless checkpoint with Stacy telling him she is going to call police employees to bring the family back so they can have their liberty violated.
The footage then shows the Feinmans being pulled over by what appears to be officers with the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department and California Highway Patrol.
Feinman continues to assert his rights as officers attempt to extort him with citations, and threaten to pull him out of his vehicle and have his children kidnapped by Child Protective Services.
Feinman asks what law he has broken and one officer replies that he is in violation of the “California Food and Agriculture Code,” before telling him to exit his vehicle so they can write him a ticket – and asserts in so many words that the checkpoint is not compulsory as individuals can refuse and “go back to Nevada.”
“But I live in California,” Feinman says. “Does the Agriculture code trump the U.S. Constitution? I’m a free citizen. Did you guys take an oath to defend the Constitution?”
“So you’re a Constitutionalist is what you’re saying?” another officer says after telling Feinman he is being unreasonable.
“Yes, yes I am,” Feinman boldly asserts. “What are you?”
Then, unbelievably, the officer responds by saying,“we’ve had problems with this before.”
Feinman asks the officer again if he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the cop tells the man not to sidetrack the conversation.
The officers then walk away as Feinman attempts to read them the Fourth Amendment, before – moments later – an officer identifying himself as an “off-duty” California Highway Patrol Sergeant informs the man that, “all [officers] want to do is write [him] a ticket and if [he] can’t do that then [officers] are going to have to break the window and get in and take [him] out.”
The Sgt. then claims Feinmans behavior is “totally unnecessary” and says “this is your choice right now… we have given you ever opportunity we can,” before – as if compelled by some supernatural force beyond their control – an officer smashes out the back window of the vehicle and arrest the occupants.
“This is a complete violation of my rights,” Feinman says.
“Well, maybe,” the officer that did the property damage stops short of saying.
In videos posted to social media, it is claimed that the vehicle was searched and impounded, that excessive bail was set for the family, and that one child was taken by CPS.
While many may decide from the footage that Feinman should have just complied with the officers and received a citation, the incident should instead be a lesson to all that illustrates what happens now to people in the United States who stand up for their rights.
There can be no compromise when dealing with petty tyrants – not if we wish to reclaim our liberty.
“If you stand up for your rights, this is what you get,” Feinman said in the footage. “Id like to be free to travel and this is what I get.”
Watch the raw footage:
Supporters of the Feinmans are asking that people stand up for principle and liberty by calling Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal and demanding that he protect the U.S. Constitution:
Telephone number: 530-265-1471
Email address: [email protected]
Deputy District Attorney Anna Tyner can be reached at:
Telephone number: 530-582-7832
Email address: [email protected]
I don’t know who this guy Eric is. But if you that baldy guy. You are an embarrassment to society. Your stupidity costs your son a record. It was satisfying to watch police break the windows. Was satisfying to learn about the charges. But that wasn’t enough. They should’ve forced your dumb bald head to the ground and cuff you. Your wife should’ve went to jail too. You are a laughing stock. Do you not feel embarrassed? World sees this event and calling you the dumbest clown activist.
Good job officers. Good job the judge. Next time shut up and do what you are told clown.
Baldy,
You write: ” Next time shut up and do what you are told clown.”
A more fitting epitaph for what was once America could not be imagined. Do you take pleasure in being obedient? Apparently. And you seem to relish others being made obedient, too.
America was once a place where free people were free to go about their business without being randomly stopped by armed government workers and subjected to “inspections” – which are materially the same as a search – without their having done something specific to warrant suspicion that they’d committed or were about to commit a crime.
That is called probable cause – and it is written into the law, by the way. Which the government does not obey. Do you find that at all interesting?
While I do agree that for all practical purposes inspection and search appears to be the same. The difference is that search in this context is looking for evidence of a crime whereas an I inspection is looking contaminated agricultural products and if something is found it’s removed, no harm no foul. It gets tricky if you have something you shouldn’t and the inspector sees it. The inspector will let you pass but will contact officers and you will be pulled over and be subjected to the punishment for that. This is where I have the biggest issue. Unfortunately there is plenty of case law that has covered this and the courts have upheld the constitutionality of the checkpoints and inspections. There is a great article that explains and mentions many of the decisions it’s at the link below.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1848553.html
Hi John,
Yes, the courts have upheld the “constitutionality” of these “checkpoints.” All that means, as I see it, is that the courts decided to ignore the plain English of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment does not say there are exceptions to the requirement that all searches by premised on probable cause and a warrant. Styling a search an “inspection” is Talmudic parsing. It is clearly disingenuous given the Fourth was clearly written to prevent such “inspections.”
Lmfao. I love how you and Feinman think you know more about the constitution than the scholars and lawyers and judges who have devoted their entire lives to studying it.
You can’t just say everybody else is wrong and your interpretation is the ONLY one that matters. Courts? Wrong. Precedence? Wrong. Laws? Wrong. My personal interpretation of a document I didn’t write? Correct. That’s bonkers. Almost as bonkers as Feinman subjecting his children to jail and DCF just because he didn’t hand his license over when he was required to by law.
“You have to give your ID or we will arrest you”
“You can’t do that”
They do it. He loses all his court cases. Serves 14 days in jail. He was wrong. Claiming your interpretation of the law is the only one that matters doesn’t mean shit if it doesn’t protect you lol
Yall are goofy as fuck.
Hi Karl,
I understand what words mean.
A “search” means something or someone is looked for or examined. In the context at issue there is the additional element of the search being nonconsensual and performed by agents of the state. The wording of the Fourth Amendment states clearly that nonconsensual searches done by the state must be based upon probable cause and shall not be performed without a warrant issued by a judge. The probable cause-free, random searches of everyone who just happens to be on the road are exactly the sorts of searches the Fourth Amendment was intended to disallow.
The courts have (despicably) “ruled” that merely by dint of having submitted to the state’s requirement that one have a state-issued driver’s license (or is driving on a government-controlled road) one has given “implied consent” to probable cause-free random stops/searches. This does not make such searches morally right – as opposed to legally enforced.
More broadly: I am always saddened when I read a comment such as yours that defends the state’s thuggery and mocks those who criticize it. This is a testament to the effectiveness of government “schooling” as well as the ugly, totalitarian mindset of all too many Americans.
I encourage you to re-examine your thoughts and consider whether it’s right to threaten a person who has done nothing (to cause harm) and given no reason to suspect he may have or is about to commit it. Whether it is right (never mind “legal”) to use physical violence against such a person just because they objected to being subject to an “inspection” – that is, a search – and refused to consent to being searched.
The Constitution is written in plain English. A literate child (becoming quite rare) can understand it. It does not need “interpretation” except by those who seek to disobey it. Elected agents of the State take a vow to “protect and defend” it, and immediately start trying to figure out ways around it, legal or not.
And yet the same California government allows illegal aliens in with open arms and large quantities of honest peoples’ stolen money, without an “inspection”.
It’s not a democracy- a reasonable search is one where there is a credible accuser with standing to accuse (the victim or first person witness of a real crime- gives basis for swearing out of a search warrant. And if that warrant is to search for drugs and the communist enforcers find only guns they are afraid of, they cant do a damned thing about it legitimately. Reasonable is not what a small or large majority thinks is OK.
An inspection is a search when carried out by an agent of a government.
Though in fairness, this gentleman was a courageous fool, and if you’re going to defy illegitimate authority, you’d better have a plan to take it all the way to the hilt. If you’re not prepared to shoot it out with the Gestapo, you’d better have a plan to sneak around them.
RE: “a courageous fool”
Via merriam-webster:
fool 1 of 3 noun
1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence
Only a fool would ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.
…Seems like that helmet & judgement bit has been covered pretty well on EPA already.
As to the other parts?
judgment noun
1 a: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing
3 a: a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion
6: a proposition stating something believed or asserted
…Seems like he did all that, no?
Like he was principled, or something?
prudence noun
1: the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason
…Seems like he did that, too.
The goons in uniform, not-so-much.
The trip-up – possibly – is here:
4: caution or circumspection as to danger or risk
The guy thought he lived in America & The Constitution means what it says and it seems he expected his fellow American’t’s to have that same perspective.
…Therein, lies the rub.
I.e. Not be simple mindless order followers & obeyers as if they were Nazi thugs. .,, Oh, wait.
Uncle Tom 1 of 2 noun
2 disparaging : a person who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority
Bottom line: taking a stand without a pre-plan to sneak around them is an honorable & courageous thing.
See Also:
‘Centennial: Warpath’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjpfdturg_s
Somewhere, in that series, there’s a line ~ “I come to you without fear”
He did that.
And yet the same California government allows illegal aliens in with open arms and large quantities of honest peoples’ stolen money, without an “inspection”.
It’s what’s known as anarcho-tyranny. Regular citizens are treated as criminals, while the authorities turn a blind eye to real crime.
Haha!! Man, they’re laughing at this Feinman idiot all over the Internet right now, several years later. This is what happens when dumb white-trash think they’re Constitutional scholars. And to think, Libertarians used to be smart.
RE: “Constitutional scholars”
It’s kinda sad how some people think only the upper-class, the priestly-class, knows what rights men have.
As if, common people have no concept of the rights they are born with. And, it’s as if it requires, “Constitutional scholars” to inform the world about rights under Natural Law.
‘The Natural Law’
“The idea of natural law is as old as philosophy. Even primitive law held that such laws were unchangeable by human ordinance, and it has the same force always and everywhere within a given cultural environment.”…
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/bionic-mosquito/the-natural-law/
Or, if you prefer, “Make. Go. Faster.”?
It’s sad that people like you exist. Your opinion is stupid and wrong. And your website won’t let me post my comments.
Hi Amanda,
Well, your comment is visible. As to why it’s “sad that people like me exist,” I’d be curious to know why you feel that way.
I routinely travel I15 between Escondido and SR91, so I am very familiar with the inspection station south of Temecula. I cannot recall having been directed to “pull over for inspection.” Mostly, they just wave me through. Guaranteed, I have never been asked “Where are you coming from?” Had they done so, I would likely have responded, “San Diego County,” since that is what is south of there. But, that never happened. Inshallah, it never will.
Those who have been to Hawaii will recognize that the protocol w.r.t. “The Islands,” is exactly reversed. There, they hassle you upon departure, rather than arrival. I do not know who gets to eat the small mountain of fruit (anything with seeds) which gets confiscated at the airport. but it is quite a haul.
eric, you are so dumb, like the bald guy there. No need to argue coz I can tell when I see one and it’s right here, named eric (with clover leaf).
The Authorities are right. That bald guy deserves it. pffft
Covid,
You might begin with something more thoughtful than “you are so dumb.” And then you proceed with “no need to argue,” establishing you have no argument.
Key word that all y’all dumbasses refuse to acknowledge: unreasonable.
AG stations at the CA border conduct REASONABLE searches.
Get fucking dunked
Hi Anon,
Who gets to define what “reasonable” is? The government? According to what standard? I’ve got family in CA and have been there many times. I’ve had to deal with their unreasonable (to me) “checkpoints” – at which people who’ve given no reason at all to suspect they’ve done anything illegal, let alone wrong, are compelled to stop by armed government workers and compelled to answer their unwarranted questions. These AGWs have it in their power to hassle anyone who enters one of these “checkpoints,” absent any legitimate reason for it, beyond their power to do it.
PS: Please refrain from calling others here “morons.” It lowers the level of things.
Its not “unreasonable” they want to inspect for insects or other things because invasive spieces will kill the environment and can have a damaging affect on people and living conditions in areas where the invasive species doesnt belong. Here is a visual, if a bunch of seeds of a native plant from Nevada gotten attacked to your vehicle and you tried to drive and enter California and get through and those seeds fall and seed themselves into the ground and grow…whats stopping those plants from spreading and taking over everything it can? It doesnt have its natrual preditor in California so whats going to keep its population levels reasonable?
Go online and search invasive spiece within your state/region. You will see there are a lot and you might remember seeing a lot.of that plant. Some might think its “fine” but its not. Its harmful to the environment and can kill of spieces.
They have reason and that reason is to make sure the environment doesnt get overtaken or destroyed by another spieces from another state. Your rights arent going to be stolen from you, and its only going to take a few minutes, dont be such a baby. They only want to check a few places to make sure nothing is there.
Also there is a difference between a “Search” and an “inspection”.
‘Search’ involves an attempt to find something. Search, in tax/legal parlance, is an action of a government official (a tax officer or a police officer, depending on the case) to go and look through or examine carefully a place, person, object etc. in order to find something concealed or to discover evidence of a crime. The search can only be done under the proper and valid authority of law.
‘Inspection’ is the act of examining something, often closely. In tax/legal language, it is a softer provision than search. It enables officers to access any place of business of a taxable person and also any place of business of a person engaged in transporting goods or who is an owner/operator of a warehouse or godown.
Hi Eli,
You appear to have missed the entire point of the article – about over-the-top and gratuitously punitive measures taken by Armed Government Workers. The victims in this case were victimized because they declined to answer AGW questions, which – by law – they are not required to answer. But failure to answer amounts to the unwritten “crime” of Affronting an Officer. The rest played out accordingly.
The AGWs claim they are only “inspecting” the victims’ vehicle. This being of a piece with a “tax” not being robbery-theft. A search is what was insisted upon, in clear violation (absent probable cause) of the constitutional protections against such arbitrary and probable-cause-free searches.
You write:
“They only want to check a few places to make sure nothing is there.” It’s all for our Safety and they would never use the excuse to paw through your things to find other things besides “insects” and contraband plants.
Americans will never recover their freedom so long as they defend submission to government thugs.
No, a ‘search’ is when authorities are seeking out information or evidence so they can charge you with a crime, which might subject you to fines and incarceration.
An ‘inspection’ is to verify whether or not you have any items prohibited from entering California. If you do, they don’t charge you with a crime, they just confiscate the prohibited item.
The way the law is written, you have three choices that don’t cause any problems:
You can turn around and go back to the previous state.
You can park the vehicle for 24 hours there at the inspection station, walk to any nearby motel, and after 24 hours can go back and pick up the car and continue on without an inspection. The ‘hook’ of the law says the car can’t be driven for 24 hours upon entering the state unless it’s been inspected.
You can submit to the inspection and forfeiture of any items of concern.
Of course, if you try to enter the state and drive that vehicle on public roadways within 24 hours of entering without submitting to an inspection, you are subject to being pulled over and cited.
I wish the Ag inspectors had a sheet of paper outlining the law, provide the case citations that says it’s constitutional and what your options are to hand to people who object.
See https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/104/505.html
As others have said here, the operative word in the Fourth Amendment is “unreasonable”. This has been litigated and found to be reasonable, therefore constitutional.
The “libertarianism” only works if people take personal responsibility to protecting the public good or community from the consequences of their actions.
Yet ever single libertarian I see whining oh the internet is entirely focused on their invidious rights and demonstrates a pathological disregard for public safety, public good, or the health of community they live in.
It is embarrassing and continues to by why libertarianism is a fringe political movement and incompatible to sustaining a functional and prosperous society.
Hi Lars,
You write:
“…every single libertarian I see whining oh the internet is entirely focused on their invidious rights and demonstrates a pathological disregard for public safety, public good, or the health of community they live in.”
I’d be interested in some specificity. What do you mean, exactly, by “public safety” and the “public good” and the “health of the community”? I hope you don’t mean the wearing of Face Diapers…
Watch this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YARMZsFFCM) for clarity on what the law actually says. This idiot was clearly in the WRONG and your article further illustrates that he is not the only one having difficulty in understanding the difference between an “inspection” and a “search”. This is exactly why he and his son were both sentenced to jail and community service for their stupidity.
It’s funny how the side that favors more government power calls people stupid for not being able to play lawyer games on the side of the road or any other place as the government uses all sorts of clever wording, definitions, and court decisions and so on to violate people’s rights yet will then ridicule the sovereign citizen types and others who play the same game. It’s hilarious how when the government is allowed to decide when to play semantic games between things like “search” and “inspection” but the moment some mundane cracks open a law dictionary and tries the same game to protect their rights then plain and ordinary effective language is to be used. It’s always what case benefits government power.
I’ve told this story before about how a car I had stored in my driveway and behind the line formed by the back wall of my house was ticketed for inop and abandoned yet the law clearly stated that for both the vehicle had to be parked on the street. The inop required a vital part missing and this car was completely operational. Get in, turn the key, go. It simply wasn’t being used. But when I tried to present the written law in court the “judge” got angry and waved it off. See the purpose of the law to prevent blight or whatever was all that mattered not the written requirements in the law. But ya know what, if I’m driving entirely safely and a cop finds I didn’t dot some i or cross some t I can’t go in argue the intent of the law and that I followed that, it will be the technical written requirements for those tickets. Whatever gives the government more power and money. If it weren’t for double standards there wouldn’t be any.
The interstate commerce clause is another thing that only works in one direction. This California Ag. Code is literally preventing someone from driving into another state, affecting interstate commerce. But because that would increase the liberty and power of the individual, it is not applied.
Only from ENTERING CA, not LEAVING.
moron.
Michael,
You’re new here, so I’ll explain something. We deal in principles, not pedantry. Not your pedantry – the pedantry and parsing of “the law” vs. what’s right. In plain, honest language an “inspection” is a “search.” If someone can compel you to submit to an examination of your person or property, you have been searched. Calling it an “inspection” changes no material fact. Just as calling theft “taxes”doesn’t change the nature of the thing, either.
You describe objecting to searches as “stupidity.” If you actually believe that, you’re part of the problem.
Michael,
Your definition of “stupidity” jibes with that of Stalin and his chief prosecutor, Vyshinsky. To them, it was evidence of “stupidity” to deviate from orthodoxy; to not “obey the law” – as defined by themselves.
Libertarians think it’s stupid to respect a law just because it’s the law – and vile to punish people just for violating a law.
Libertarians think that tangible harm to an actual (human) victim must be proved before any person can rightfully be deprived of property or liberty.
It’s peculiar but telling how the article/website author ignores this comment yet replies to the other comments that date after the one you’ve gave here; almost as if they’re choosing not to acknowledge the existence of the video in question alongside the comment which you had made.
And look at that, a very easy thing to fact check here; neither are synonymous with each other as you had stated:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/inspection
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/search
This article is factually incorrect, I completely agree, they have the right to the freedom of speech but seem to forget that criticism is part of that freedom.
Justin,
The article is several years old. The comment the other day was the first in years. No attempt has been made to ignore anything or anyone.
You claim an inspection is not a search. Which is the difference between a sea and an ocean; i.e., there is no material difference. An AGW demands to “inspect” the contents of your vehicle. Another AGW says he intends to “search” your vehicle. So – while you are quoting Webster’s – do you consider that the “inspection” isn’t a “search”? In both instances, you are expected to submit to an AGW’s demand to examine the contents of your vehicle. A search, in other words. Calling it an “inspection” – and pretending that makes it different – is the same as calling robbery/theft “taxes.”
We don’t lick badges around here. Nor parse legalisms.
You’re comparing apples to oranges here. The connotations are entirely different here; they weren’t rummaging around, taking items from the individual for criminal investigation, just a simple look around to make sure no invasive species got inside the vehicle.
This wasn’t an issue around constitutional rights, this was a necessary precaution to help ensure the individual’s vehicle was free of any insects or arachnids in the invasive species list before allowing them to enter inside the state.
If they where to allow them to enter without making sure the said invasive species didn’t find a way inside the vehicle, and they where any inside, there’s an extremely high chance it will find it’s way onto farmland, have offspring and causing farmers to lose profits from their hardwork due to it killing the land and animals who’e feed comes from the crops as well.
Causing residents and farm animals to suffer an incoming famine and do you really want people to suffer because you want others to utterly refuse a necessity such as this? Do you not believe that certain necessary evils are needed or do you just wish to keep yourself arrogant to the point it could potentially harm large groups of people?
Hi Justin,
No, I’m not. You are making a pedantic-legalistic distinction. And AGW “inspects” your car. An AGW searches it. Pray explain the meaningful difference?
You assert the usual badge-licking catch-all justification: It’s necessary to treat everyone as a presumptive criminal and to abrogate everyone’s natural and constitutional right to not be subject to “inspection” absent specific probable cause to believe a crime has been committed… because saaaaaaaaaafety. Because “something bad” might otherwise happen.
It is precisely the same logic that has given us probable cause-free “drunk driver” checkpoints and TSA gropes, too.
Do you think those are “justified” as well?
It’s less of a might and more of something that had happened in the past, this sort of agricultural check up is the answer as to not cause a situation to happen once again; they don’t just do out of the thin air, there was past incidents and from studying about the cause they concluded that doing a check up would be the best method to prevent further cases. If it’s happened before it’ll
most definitely happen again.
Again, you’re presenting false dichotomies. This ain’t related to anything around the criminal force, it’s not like a drunk driving check up neither are they treating everyone as a criminal.
It’s a matter of environmental precaution, they inspect based on the presumption that people unconsciously leave items in the car insects and arachnids oftentimes do find their way inside houses, cars and other such items.
You’re presuming I even have any opinions about the other unrelated things.
I’ve already explained the connotative difference between an inspection and a search in my previous reply, perhaps I wasn’t more clear, Merriam Webster is my citation for both definitions:
“inspection noun
in·spec·tion
Legal Definition of inspection
: a careful and critical examination: as
a: a buyer’s examination of goods prior to payment or acceptance especially in accordance with section 2-513 of the Uniform Commercial Code
b: an examination of articles of commerce to determine their fitness for transportation or sale
c: an investigation of an applicant for insurance
d: an examination or survey of a community, of premises, of a facility, or of a vehicle by an authorized person (as to determine compliance with regulations or susceptibility to fire or other hazards)
specifically : ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH at search
e: examination of documents, things, or property for purposes of making discovery for trial”
And now the legal definition of search:
“search noun
Legal Definition of search (Entry 1 of 2)
1: an exploratory investigation (as of an area or person) by a government agent that intrudes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and is conducted usually for the purpose of finding evidence of unlawful activity or guilt or to locate a person
warrantless searches are invalid unless they fall within narrowly drawn exceptions
— State v. Mahone, 701 P.2d 171 (1985)
— see also EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, PLAIN VIEW sense 2, PROBABLE CAUSE at CAUSE sense 2, REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEARCH WARRANT at WARRANT
— compare SEIZURE
NOTE: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that a warrant may issue only upon probable cause and that the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. Some searches, such as a search incident to an arrest, have been held to be valid without a warrant.
— administrative search
: an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme especially in public or commercial premises and usually to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security
one of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations
— People v. Madison, 520 N.E.2d 374 (1988)
— called also administrative inspection, inspection, regulatory search
— see also PROBABLE CAUSE at CAUSE sense 2
NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. The Court stated that the reasonableness of the search can only be determined by “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails.” Cases following Camara have stated that the probable cause requirement is fulfilled by showing that the search meets reasonable administrative standards established in a nonarbitrary regulatory scheme.
— border search
: a search made of a person upon crossing into the U.S. at a border or its equivalent (as the airport at which the person arrives in the U.S.)
NOTE: Probable cause is not required for a border search.
— consent search
: a warrantless search conducted upon the voluntarily given consent of a person having authority over the place or things to be searched
— inventory search
: a warrantless search (as of an impounded automobile) conducted for the purpose of placing personal property in safekeeping to prevent loss of the property and claims against police for such loss
— protective search
: a search (as a frisk) conducted by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of ensuring against threats to safety (as from a concealed weapon) or sometimes to prevent the destruction of evidence
— regulatory search
: administrative search in this entry
— shakedown search \ ˈshāk-ˌdau̇n- \
: a search for illicit or contraband material (as weapons or drugs) in prisoners’ cells that is usually random and warrantless
NOTE: In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to searches of prisoners’ cells.
— strip search
: a search for something concealed on a person conducted after removal of the person’s clothing
2: an act of boarding and inspecting a ship on the high seas in exercise of the right to do so under international law (as in time of war)
3: an examination of a public record or registry
— see also TITLE SEARCH
search transitive verb
Legal Definition of search (Entry 2 of 2)
: to conduct a search of
search the premises
search a person
search a title
intransitive verb
: to conduct a search
search for drugs in a school locker”
Hi Justin,
More pedantic legalisms. You can parse “inspection” vs. “search” all you like. It’s a difference without a distinction. Like “taxes” vs. robbery. In effect, it is the same thing. As Bod Doooooole used to say: You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
You then (again) provide the usual authoritarian collectivist justification for what you advocate:
“…they don’t just do out of the thin air, there was past incidents and from studying about the cause they concluded that doing a check up would be the best method to prevent further cases. If it’s happened before it’ll most definitely happen again.”
“…It’s less of a might and more of something that had happened in the past.”
Gotta stop those dangerous drunks! The terrorists! You might be transporting an invasive plant species! And, indeed, there are dangerous drunks – and (probably) terrorists, too. But I don’t give a flip – because I reject the doctrine you espouse – which is that because “someone” might be . . . insert offense here . . . everyone must be presumptively treated as an offender until proved otherwise.
It’s endless – precisely because there’s no limit. Just submit. For the greater good. Feel better about it by calling it by a different name. Pay what are styled your “taxes.” It’s just a “check.” Merely an “inspection.” Nothing objectionable.
Your position is also pathetically naive in that you seem to think that armed government workers are Vigilant Guardians rather than . . . armed government workers. Their job is not to “keep you safe.” It is to bust you – for anything they can. To take your money – along with your right to be let alone.
The constitution was for restraining the federal government, not government in general:
Regardless if one thinks that it is a good measure to have the Federal government policing the States for any signs of them infringing on the states citizens’ inalienable rights (federalism anyone?), the fact remains that the Bill of Rights was drafted to further clarify limitations on the Federal government, not the States.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/30/the-bill-of-rights-applies-to-the-federal-government/
Doesn’t make it right, but keep that in mind next time you get “inspected.”
While it’s true that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution represented a restraint solely upon Federal government, somewhere around the time of the 14th Amendment and right after the War Between the States the Constitution and all of its amendments began to be applied to restrain the individual state governments as well. This was yet another major blow to the doctrine of States Rights/States Sovereignty.
For example, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and, later, the Bill of Rights, several states had longstanding and well established state churches supported by public taxation. The ratification of the First Amendment was not seen in any way to be in conflict with each State’s sovereign right to do whatever its government passed within its borders. The only restrictions were that, in order to be part of the Union, each state had to have a republican form of government (Article 4, Section 1). State-sponsored churches died out on their own fairly rapidly, I’m guessing mostly in response to the widespread sentiment of freedom of religion as expressed in the First Amendment, not because of application of that amendment.
Given that the vast majority of Americans, including most “Constitutional lawyers,” don’t understand this point, and the fact that many later amendments were specifically directed to restrain State governments, not Federal government, which has muddied the waters considerably, there has been a long chain of judicial precedents established now that effectively erased the separation of Federal and State restrictions of the Constitution and its amendments.
Thus we see, time and time again, many of the Bill of Rights being used to enforce solely Federal restrictions upon State governments, such as gun control and “separation of church and state” issues. Both conservatives and liberals wield this sword to great effect without the average citizen having any clue how misapplied it is.
Your point is an excellent one. To properly defend against this sort of illegal search and seizure and arrest, the victims should first appeal to the California Constitution, which likely has a “Bill of Rights” incorporated into its body, as most US State Constitutions do, that has a section very similar to the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. That would be the proper starting point of defense, using the US Bill of Rights as a fallback plan but not the preferred option.
If we wish to preserve and strengthen States Rights in the face of Federal overreach and usurpation, utilizing the primacy of each State’s own constitution would be a good place to start. At the same time, recognizing that the rules of the game have been changed mid-game, and that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is effectively a dead letter, we might have to get a little dirty to fight for freedom.
It’s an interesting challenge to stand on principle while, on some level, having to give lip service to the realities of this lawless modern world. Purity of principle will invariably mean greater hardship as long as the statists are in control. After all, we drive on public roads, including interstates, which are unconstitutional in and of themselves.
“The constitution was for restraining the federal government, not government in general:”
Nonsense. Only Amendment One is restricted to FedGov alone, “Congress shall make no law”. All others are applicable nationwide.