Fighting California’s lawless general searches under the guise of pest control

For generations, residents of Southern California’s Riverside and San Bernardino Counties have lived in harmony with the citrus trees that dot their private lawns and public spaces alike. The trees aren’t just a source of fresh fruit; they’re a living connection to the rich agricultural history of the state’s “Inland Empire.” 

When an invasive fruit fly species began to appear in San Bernardino County, the government took action to protect citrus trees. However, the truly threatening invaders weren’t the fruit flies. They were the government agents armed with general warrants, trolling across residential neighborhoods with no regard for private property rights, in echoes of the British customs agents from this nation’s pre-Revolutionary history. 

Growing concern over the fruit flies prompted the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to seek a warrant to search for the pests in private yards and patios. A local court obliged in February 2024, approving a “general warrant” granting the agency sweeping powers to enter and inspect any private property across a vast 554-square-mile area, with no specific addresses or further court action needed. 

The approach is not only alarming, but also starkly reminiscent of the Writs of Assistance used by British customs inspectors when searching for smuggled goods. In colonial America, British customs agents (who enforced the crushing taxes against which Americans rebelled) were issued a writ when they took their office which allowed them to search anywhere and everywhere they wished at any time for untaxed goods. The inevitable widespread abuse and arbitrary enforcement helped galvanize the colonists’ fight for independence and inspired the Constitution’s framers to craft a special provision within the Fourth Amendment prohibiting such broad, unchecked government intrusion. 

The Amendment’s “Particularity Clause” requires warrants to clearly define specific places to be searched and exactly what can be seized. The Supreme Court has since upheld its protections, calling general warrants “one of the primary evils” targeted by the Fourth Amendment. 

David Hood’s home in Redlands, California, was among thousands roped into the CDFA warrant’s vast geographic reach. Citing the presence of fruit flies in his neighborhood, the CDFA stuck a notice on David’s front door claiming authority and seeking consent to search his property. Never mind that neither his name nor home address appeared anywhere in the warrant. Nor did the CDFA take any steps to establish to Mr. Hood, a court, or anyone else that fruit flies had been found nearby.  

David declined consent and offered to send pictures of his fruitless trees instead. But the CDFA was unmoved and repeatedly insisted David was the only holdout among his neighbors in refusing permission. After multiple notices, communications, and admonitions that David was the only holdout in refusing permission, officers from the CDFA and the California Highway Patrol arrived to execute the warrant.  

Despite his objections about the warrant’s validity, the officers forced David to allow them access to his fenced-in-backyard patio to inspect his citrus trees. 

Given citrus production’s prominence and value to the area, many believe the government needs wide latitude to prevent the destruction of fruit trees. These types of so-called “administrative” searches are commonplace, and the Supreme Court has relaxed the “probable cause” requirement when the government needs a warrant to search for something unrelated to criminal law enforcement. However, it has not relaxed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the warrants be specific rather than general. The handful of instances that require a warrant do not need to end up like David’s. When consent is unavailable, the CDFA should simply go to a judge, provide them with their justification, and then acquire a suitably limited and specific warrant for the search of the property where an owner refuses consent. 

The CDFA’s claim of finding the targeted pests in David’s neighborhood might have constituted valid grounds for a specific warrant. But the CDFA never tried to get one. It simply had to share the information it had with a judge and get permission from the court to search Mr. Hood’s backyard.  

In other words, the agency simply had to follow the law.  

David is fighting back with free representation from Pacific Legal Foundation. He filed a federal lawsuit to restore his right to be secure in his own property and limit the government’s ability to trespass on private property under the guise of an unconstitutional general warrant.