Constitutionality of watercraft inspection stations

[Shrimpjuice]

Is there anyone here who can speak to the legality of stopping and detaining citizens to search their property for invasive species? I understand a station has opened in Cle Elum "just off exit 80" as their website states. The fine for not stopping I hear is 180 dollars. I understand this is happening all over the country, my concern is the potential abuse of our 4th Admendment rights. Has anyone passed through this station that can inform us what happens during the detainment, who does the actual searching (law enforcement, wdfw, or volunteers with no legal authority) I am interested to know how far off I90 this station is located. And at what point are you legally detained. DWI check points are not legal in Washington for constitutional reasons, how do they get away with this?

[jd39]

I’ve stopped at that invasive species station off exit 80. It was no big deal at all. I had thought it was for out of state boats only but the signs said all boats so I stopped.
Was asked “when was the last time you used the boat” and “where did you use it”. They checked that my drain plug out was out and said “thanks” and sent me on my way. They looked to be wdfw volunteers to me but not 100% sure on that.
Took all of 5 minutes.
I was never “detained”.
Easy access on/off I-90 for people towing.
Not a bad experience at all and well worth it to hopefully stop the spread of invasive species in our waterways.

[hewesbob]

Do you think you have the constitutional right to spread invasive species from waterway to waterway? Just because people think they have the "RIGHT" to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do! Shripmjuice only a foolish person would think that trying to keep from spreading invasive species is some how stepping on your constitutional rights. Have a nice day or is that infringing on your rights to have any kind of day you want to have.

[hewesfisher]

Whine all you want...

WAC 220-640-011

Failure to stop at mandatory AIS check station—Infraction.

Any person who fails to stop at a mandatory check station is guilty of a gross misdemeanor under RCW 77.15.809; however, if a person has never been previously issued either a citation or warning for this violation, the violation may be issued as an infraction under RCW 77.15.160.

At minimum failure to stop will result in a citation, at worst you'll be arrested, your choice.

[The Quadfather]

This thing is seriously NO big deal, and you have to step away from the viewpoint of that they are infringing on your rights somehow..

This is a move that is actually out to protect the interests that your care about… this means the waterways that you fish in.
It’s not ‘da man’ squashing your rights. It’s ‘da-man, looking out for your best interest.

[FishingFool]

I saw the signs for this recently. Was wondering what that was all about. Good to know. Thanks

[cwbraue]

Well the Constitution established a government, so it's probably legal. That's one of the benefits of having an inflatable, no one can see it in my trunk.

[Don Wittenberger]

From my perspective as a lawyer, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to know what their rights are. General answer: It isn't legal just because the government does it, and the government doing it doesn't make it legal. Law professors love to bombard law students with hypotheticals, and being familiar with that pedagogical technique, I'll employ one here to make a point. I know all the folks here are law-abiding, and this would never happen to them, but suppose a boat inspection for invasive species reveals the presence of illegal drugs. Can that be used in court? The answer is complicated.

According to the Supreme Court, vehicle inspections at checkpoints are seizures, but only "unreasonable" seizures are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. When the public interest served by a checkpoint inspection outweighs the minimal intrusion and inconvenience imposed on the driver, it will be considered reasonable and therefore constitutional. So the invasive species inspection probably passes muster.

A checkpoint for the purpose of searching for illegal drugs is another story. This probably flunks the reasonableness test, because it's a warrantless search for evidence of a crime conducted without probable cause. Therefore, should an out-of-state visitor passing through our beautiful Evergreen State get caught with drugs stuffed up the bilge drain of his mussel-covered boat, he's going to need a lawyer anyway, so he can just kick back in jail and watch TV while his public defender figures out the constitutionality of the search.