The Feinman family was arrested for exercising their right to be secure in their person, papers, and effects while driving across the fictitious border between California and Nevada. The incident occurred in August 2015 and sparked a controversy over the legality and morality of the agricultural inspection stations that operate in the region. This article will provide a summary of what happened, why it happened, and what are the implications of this case for the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
What Happened to the Feinman Family?
The Feinman family was traveling from Nevada to California in their car, carrying some personal belongings and food items. They were stopped at the Truckee agricultural station, where they were asked to open their trunk and declare the origin of their cargo. Brad Feinman, the father of the family, refused to comply, arguing that the inspection was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He asked the officers to show him a warrant or a probable cause for the search, which they failed to do. He also refused to show his license and registration, claiming that he was not driving in commerce and that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
The officers repeatedly threatened to break his windows and arrest him if he did not cooperate. They also called for backup and surrounded the car with guns drawn. The situation escalated when an officer smashed the driver’s side window and dragged Brad out of the car. His wife, Catherine, and their two children, Vincent and Bradley, were also forcibly removed from the vehicle and handcuffed. The officers searched the car without consent and found nothing illegal or suspicious. The family was taken to jail and charged with various offenses, including resisting arrest, obstructing justice, and child endangerment. They were later released on bail, but their car and belongings were impounded.
Why Did the Feinman Family Refuse the Inspection?
The Feinman family refused the inspection because they believed that it was an unlawful and unconstitutional intrusion on their privacy and property. They argued that the agricultural inspection stations were not authorized by the federal or state law, and that they were a pretext for revenue generation and harassment of travelers. They also claimed that they were not subject to the regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), which operates the stations, because they were not engaged in any commercial activity or transporting any agricultural products. They asserted that they were traveling as free and sovereign citizens, and that they had the right to travel unmolested by the government.
The Feinman family was not alone in their views. They were part of a movement called the Restore Freedom Project, which advocates for the restoration of the original Constitution and the protection of the natural rights of the people. The movement challenges the legitimacy and authority of the federal and state governments, and rejects the statutory laws and codes that they impose on the citizens. The movement also educates and empowers the people to resist the tyranny and corruption of the government, and to reclaim their sovereignty and freedom.
What Are the Implications of the Feinman Family Case?
The Feinman family case raises important questions about the legality and morality of the agricultural inspection stations, and the rights and freedoms of the travelers who pass through them. The CDFA claims that the stations are necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of pests and diseases that could harm the state’s agriculture and environment. The CDFA also claims that the stations are authorized by the California Food and Agricultural Code, and that the travelers are required to comply with the inspection or face penalties. The CDFA says that the inspection is not a search, but a mere visual inspection that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
However, the critics of the stations argue that the inspection is indeed a search, and that it violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. They argue that the inspection is not based on any warrant or probable cause, and that it is conducted without the consent or knowledge of the travelers. They also argue that the inspection is not limited to agricultural products, but extends to any personal items or effects that the travelers may have in their vehicles. They also argue that the inspection is not effective or necessary, and that it is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent on other public safety issues.
The Feinman family case also raises questions about the validity and applicability of the statutory laws and codes that the government enforces on the people. The Feinman family and the Restore Freedom Project contend that the statutory laws and codes are not the supreme law of the land, and that they are not binding on the people who have not consented to them. They contend that the supreme law of the land is the original Constitution, and that the people have the right to live according to the natural law and the common law. They contend that the people are the sovereigns, and that the government is their servant, not their master.
The Feinman family case is a controversial and complex one, that exposes the clash between the government and the people over the issues of authority, jurisdiction, and rights. The case is still pending in the courts, and the outcome is uncertain. However, the case has already generated a lot of attention and debate, and has inspired many people to question and challenge the status quo. The case has also highlighted the need for a dialogue and a resolution between the government and the people, to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the citizens are respected and protected.
ncG1vNJzZmibkaeypr7GnpirZpiau7CyjZympmeemsS0e9KtpquxX5uyqrrMmqVmnpGitq3FjJyYpaGWpL%2BvtcBmq6GdXajBsL7YZqafZZFiw6q7y56lrWWRp7%2Bmv9NmnaiqXaeyp8HSoqWgZZGjeqq60qmcnKyZpLtw