George "geohot" Hotz Arrested In Texas For Posession of Marijuana

n1ywb writes "Goerge 'geohot' Hotz, famous for being the first to jailbreak an iPhone and for his spat with Sony over PS3 jailbreaking, was busted for possession of a small amount of marijuana at a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in Texas on his way to SXSW. The shakedown goes like this: drug dogs are run around vehicles; when they signal, DHS searches the car and finds the contraband; DHS then turns evidence and suspects over to the local sheriff. Willie Nelson, actor Armie Hammer (who played the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network), and Snoop Dogg have all gotten in trouble at the same checkpoint under similar circumstances."

Comments

You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

"Willie Nelson, actor Armie Hammer (who played the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network), and Snoop Dogg have all gotten in trouble at the same checkpoint under similar circumstances."

And people say that pot doesn't make you stupid.

Re:You don't say

[broginator]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Legalize it!

Re:You don't say

[Quiet_Desperation]

Um, I don't think there's any actual law against anecdotal evidence, per se.

Re:You don't say

[m.ducharme]

Yep, there is. Kinda. Called the "hearsay rule". Doesn't block all anecdotes, but at least tries to keep them first-hand only.

Re:You don't say

[zero.kalvin]

One time I used an anecdotal evidence and it worked, doesn't it count ?

Re:You don't say

[datavirtue]

Goddamn that article was lame. Yes, I read the article and I am now sorry I did. Well, you live and learn.

Re:You don't say

[Radtastic]

More aptly, I heard of a guy who used anecdotal evidence and it worked, does that count?

Re:You don't say

[fredrated]

I take it you are doing better than those people, because they are stupid and you are not?

Re:You don't say

[oldmac31310]

I too used anecdotal evidence once. But I didn't inhale.

Re:You don't say

[Genda]

I had a friend who used to take brownies to concerts chock full of anecdotal evidence!

Re:You don't say

[Genda]

You couldn't tell by the profound lamosity of the header that the article was going to waste 5 minutes of your life?

Re:You don't say

[mpoulton]

Yep, there is. Kinda. Called the "hearsay rule". Doesn't block all anecdotes, but at least tries to keep them first-hand only.

Hearsay is second-hand evidence, not anecdotal evidence. The admissibility of anecdotal evidence is governed by the rules on relevancy and, if applicable, expert testimony.

Re:You don't say

[m.ducharme]

Yeah yeah yeah, but give me this at least: the hearsay rule covers anecdotes the witness tells about anecdotes other people have told them, does it not? Maybe I'm not taking this seriously enough.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, you know, he's not in court making a case.

Most legal systems are a fucking joke, let's not extend their rules to everyday discussion as if it's somehow required.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the law because it's just and right, and that's why you should always obey the law and its representatives.

Re:You don't say

[Hordeking]

Actually, the hearsay rule only stops the defendant from using it. The feds are allowed to use all the hearsay they want in prosecution, according to my understanding of the federal rules of evidence.

Re:You don't say

[Opportunist]

If anything, this makes me wonder why government isn't all over legalizing it. I mean, it's not like they didn't realize yet that stupid people are easier to control.

Re:You don't say

[g0bshiTe]

Or if you must use pot, don't do stupid shit like try to get it past a border check point where you know a drug sniffing dog will be. How many d's in duh?

Re:You don't say

[houstonbofh]

Admittedly, most people are quite surprised to find "Border" checkpoints in the fucking middle of Texas! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints And why? If the "checkpoints" at the actual border don't work, why would these? (I mean to stop illegal immigration, not bust famous people...)

Re:You don't say

[Frosty Piss]

Haven't these folks in Texas heard that Pat Robertson, the Mouthpiece of God, is staunchly in favor of legalization of weed? PAT ROBERTSON? Come on, you Texas Bible Thumpers, get with the program.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Which raises the question:

What do they call planted evidence? Grab the guy, claim a dog alerted, start rifling through his stuff, then the police announce they "found something" and magically produce a small packet one of the cops had in the palm of his hand the whole time...

Re:You don't say

[Local ID10T]

Which raises the question:

What do they call planted evidence? Grab the guy, claim a dog alerted, start rifling through his stuff, then the police announce they "found something" and magically produce a small packet one of the cops had in the palm of his hand the whole time...

They call it "Guilty."

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, most people are quite surprised to find "Border" checkpoints in the fucking middle of Texas! quote>

Hardly the middle of Texas. In each case not more than an hour from the border. Which, honestly, makes it even more puzzling.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

No, as it happens Austin is pretty much the middle of texas, and at least 1/3 of Texas is in a "constitution free zone" thanks to the fucking stupid law that allows for "checkpoints" like this.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm a 'legalize it' kind of guy, I have to call you on the inflammatory rhetoric. I checked the map and none of the checkpoints are anywhere near the middle of Texas. The checkpoints all look to be in reasonable proximity to the border.

Re:You don't say

[Chewbacon]

Correlation != causation Steve Jobs did lots of drugs and I can't think of anyone who won't say he was a visionary to some extent.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite: you aren't really describing hearsay. Hearsay is not just second hand evidence, it is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

The admissibility of anything is governed by the rules of evidence, not the rules of relevancy. Relevancy is an aspect/factor of/in the rules of evidence.

Hearsay is pretty damn complicated in its fringe cases and no one really understands it, least of all elected judges :)

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

those checkpoints are working exactly as intended...they weren't put there to stop incoming illegal aliens. they were put there exactly for the purpose of what is detailed in the summary and article.

Re:You don't say

[Bing Tsher E]

Back in about 1980 I went to a big-arena rock concert and there were security at the doors. I had brought with me one or two small joints in a small plastic case.

One of the guards made me open it up to show what was in it. Then they let me through the gate, without confiscating anything.

Things were much more casual back then. The amount I had was a petty misdemeanor at the time, and they were probably checking for something else.

Re:You don't say

[houstonbofh]

While I'm a 'legalize it' kind of guy, I have to call you on the inflammatory rhetoric. I checked the map and none of the checkpoints are anywhere near the middle of Texas. The checkpoints all look to be in reasonable proximity to the border.

None of the permanent checkpoint on the maps you can get on the web, you mean... As far as the roving checkpoints, look at this map. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Also, to me a border checkpoint is at the border. Not an hour away. I need ID to go from one central town to another... (McAllen to San Antonio) Really.

Re:You don't say

[Grishnakh]

Legalization doesn't make money for the prison corporations like Wackenhut and CCA. By having these laws, they get to throw more people in prison, which means more profits for the prisons, and more slave labor for them too.

Re:You don't say

[illumnatLA]

The whole 'prison for profit' thing disturbs me greatly. No private company should profit directly from the incarceration of of individuals. I can understand companies making some profit off of selling food and supplies to prisons, but *definitely not* from the actual imprisonment of people.

As we've seen from Wall Street in the past, shareholders apparently expect not just profits, but ever-increasing profits every quarter. How are prison corporations going to meet those expectations? Increase the number of people going to prison by lobbying for heavy handed 'justice' to assure that every little infraction has at least some jail time to it.

Re:You don't say

[MichaelSmith]

Armie Hammer

I bet they booked him twice for it too.

Re:You don't say

[jsfetzik]

I believe under current law the border patrol has authority anywhere within 100 miles of the border. This means something like 75%+ of the US population lives within the border patrols area of operation and they can stop you at any time to do a "border search". The thing about this is that the rules and laws that control what the border patrol can do are way different than what most other law enforcement organizations work under. A fair amount of due process stuff just goes right out the window.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't say he's visionary.

Now you know someone.

Re:You don't say

[KaoticEvil]

Actually, I think they also call it "business as usual"....

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, there is. Kinda. Called the "hearsay rule". Doesn't block all anecdotes, but at least tries to keep them first-hand only.

Hearsay is second-hand evidence, not anecdotal evidence. The admissibility of anecdotal evidence is governed by the rules on relevancy and, if applicable, expert testimony.

jeez sheldon cooper cool it

Re:You don't say

[jonadab]

But, don't you see, those people are sort of famous, kind of, so therefore obviously they should be allowed to get away with it, you know, because, they're famous, so it's okay. Stupidity and wrongdoing shouldn't have any negative consequences if you're famous, because, umm, you know. Chewbaca lives on Endor, or something.

Re:You don't say

[lennier]

Yeah yeah yeah, but give me this at least: the hearsay rule covers anecdotes the witness tells about anecdotes other people have told them, does it not?

"So this pulp novel staggers into a bar, and he's in a really bad way... cover half torn off, corners dog-eared, a big full-colour illustration of dripping blood right on the frontispiece. A real page-turner. And he lurches up to the barman and mutters, "Doc, doc... I've been stabbed... the blade was poisoned... I need an anecdote!"

"And the bartender looks back at him and says, "Son, first of all this ain't a hospital, it's the Shaggy Dog Bar. And second, you know I can't get involved in your sort of story. But I can pour you a punchline."

Smart people can be dumb

[mcmonkey]

Why would you go through a border checkpoint with marijuana unless you wanted to get caught?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ehiris]

You sir are also known as Satan's Cocksucker.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the use of the term "shakedown", I think the submitter is trying to imply that Hotz was framed by the border patrol agents, perhaps because of his notoriety. You know, dog "signals", DHS searches the car and "finds" the contraband, etc.

Seems like a stretch to me, though. Maybe I'm just not wearing enough tinfoil.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anrego]

Pretty lame for a frame. He's gonna get what.. a small fine?

If gonna go to all that trouble.. may as well throw a brick of cocaine or something in there.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[tylersoze]

Uh you do understand this "border" checkpoint is nowhere near the actual border, right? It's just some random spot on I-10 like a 100 miles from the border. Completely ridiculous.

That said, you'd think people would have heard about this and avoid I-10 like the plague in that part of the state.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ISoldat53]

Some roads in Texas you have no choice but to drive through a checkpoint. I always avoid Texas. Not for that reason, just for general principles.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was high.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[game kid]

Perhaps, but now he has to tell any future employers that he has a drug-related criminal record, which to their eyes is like being a ghetto gangsta incompatible with their clean, upstanding image.

...not that big game companies really radiate a clean, upstanding image anymore. DRM and crazy pricing schemes and "no you can't play this over a LAN but hey like us on facebook and you'll get exclusive shiny horse armor!" and all that.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Tanuki64]

I always avoid Texas.

I think bigger.... Much bigger. Let's say approximately everything between Canada and Mexico.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Alien Being]

Me too. Texas is not the United States. Just ask a Texan.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Myopic]

Yay Alaska is okay!

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Tanuki64]

That's why I added 'approximately'. ;-)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

caught with what? his medical mj ?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[fearlezz]

You wouldn't.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cops+plant+drugs+on+suspect

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Hentes]

From the article it seems quite effective, so it might not be a completely ridiculous idea.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Isaac-1]

The reality is the west Texas I-10 check point outside El Paso may be 30-40 miles from the city, but that stretch of I-10 closely (within 2-5 miles) parallel's the border for about 50-60 miles, and the checkpoint is located where the highway/border start to diverege.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ridiculous that the courts allow this stuff. Seems unconstitutional to me, but IANAL.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[mcgrew]

Pretty lame for a frame. He's gonna get what.. a small fine?

Well, he would here in Springfield, but Texas? They'll probably hang him. But you're right, it's probably, as the Brits say, "a fair cop". Did you see his picture? He looks like a stoner. Of course the cops are going to violate his 4th amendment rights and search his propery (car) for weed.

I live in Illinois and didn't know what SXSW was, I doubt many who don't live in the area do either. Google says it's an annual music, film, and interactive conference and festival held in Austin. Why the submitter and editor thought anybody not in the southwest US would have a clue what it is is beyond me.

Guys, when you submit, be careful with those acronyms, especially ones like this that are purely local. I mean, I went to almost every show at the MRF back in the '70s. Yes, it was another music festival similar to SXSW that you would likewise be clueless about.

I shouldn't have to google to find out what an anronym stands for, unless it's a common computer-related acronym like OS or RAM.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[tylersoze]

Fair enough, but some of them are at least 75 miles from the border it looks like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints

It's still ridiculous being subjected to this nonsense without probable cause. Of course, I also think sobriety check points are unconstitutional too. Even though I would never run afoul of either since I don't smoke or drink, I still care about our actual freedoms.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[dontPanik]

SXSW is a pretty big deal, it's known across the country if you're into modern music. It also has a good amount of techie stuff which has been covered by Slashdot in the last week.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[isotope23]

You do realize this checkpoint could be many miles inside the country right?

I.E. you do not necessarily have to have come from mexico to be going through the checkpoint.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[elrous0]

If you can make it to Austin you'll be okay. Think of it as a sane oasis, surrounded by a wasteland of angry mutants circling around it in dune buggies.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Or... don't cross border from Texas!

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[m.ducharme]

Well, to add a counterpoint to your valid concern about over-use of acronyms, I'm from a small town in Ontario, Canada, and I knew what SXSW was, and that it was located in Austin, and that one would expect there to be some friction between Texas' notoriously conservative law enforcement and the much more liberal crowd that SXSW would attract. I also know that SXSW is one of the biggest, most popular festivals of its kind in North America, that people I know have been talking about it for weeks, and that half my Twitter feed is chatter about how Bruce Springsteen is giving the Keynote and how awesome it is to be there to see it (or how much it sucks to not be there to see it).

So while I agree that the editors shouldn't assume that we all know what SXSW means, I can understand why they might.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend that lives in nogalas az, and he cant leave his own city without going through a checkpoint. Sure, the city is right next to the border, but it is in America, dammit. You shouldn't be subject to those intrusions everyday of your life just because of proximity to the border.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Unwarranted search with no probable cause is ridiculous no matter how effective it is.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[m.ducharme]

Inclusive?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ewieling]

That depends on the state. In Texas " The possession of two ounces or less of marijuana is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine up to $2,000."

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[gregulator]

Some judges, in upholding this type have activity, have stated that it IS unconstitutional. But the good outweighs the bad (in their mind) so they allow it.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Isaac-1]

Marijuana possesion, can result in highly variable punishments depending on jurisdiction, meaning in some location it is treated about like a speeding ticket with a small fine, in others it may mean near maditory jail time, with potential alternatives like rehab or treatment / awareness programs. A decade or so ago a newphew of mine was in New Orleans during Mardi Gras and the passenger in his car had a personal use amount on him that he threw under the seat when the police ticketed them for a parking violation, searched the car and found the joint under the seat. As a result my newphew spent Mardi Gras weekend in jail in New Orleans, as a first offense he was given a suspended sentence which was removed from his record after a year with no other legal problems, and he had to take some sort of drug awareness class and check in with a probabtion officer.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[gstoddart]

You do realize this checkpoint could be many miles inside the country right?

I.E. you do not necessarily have to have come from mexico to be going through the checkpoint.

So, they're just doing a "papers please and submit to random inspection" kind of checkpoint?

Gee, so much for the 4th amendment. What next, "border" checks in Kansas or something?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah effective at catching people carrying small quantities of a harmless drugs, I doubt they catch many people with pounds of meth under their seat. So if your not looking to get mass amounts of hard drugs of dealers and traffickers, then for sure put up these check points.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh you do understand this "border" checkpoint is nowhere near the actual border, right? It's just some random spot on I-10 like a 100 miles from the border. Completely ridiculous.

That said, you'd think people would have heard about this and avoid I-10 like the plague in that part of the state.

First, the checkpoint was in the vicinity of Sierra Blanca, TX, which is about 15 miles from the border (as the crow flies), not "like 100 miles from the border".
Second, check a map. Avoiding I-10 in that area isn't practical if you want to get anywhere in a reasonable timeframe.
Third (and most importantly), there's no reason for anyone to bring marijuana to to SXSW. Last time I checked, marijuana is plentiful in Austin.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

and you lot wonder why your prisons are so full.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[datavirtue]

Because your so dependent on dope that you can't stand the thought of running out for a day or two until you can score some more at your destination. "It won't happen TO ME."

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[El Torico]

I go one better, I avoid Texas like the plague, and much of the rest of the South (yes, I'm from the South). If I have to travel there, I always try to look like "landed Gentry" (kind of like Thurston Howell III crossed with Colonel Sanders).

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[theshowmecanuck]

I-8 in Southern California has these too. A number of years ago I was stopped in the middle of the night at a "border checkpoint" in the hills/mountains by Jacumba while on I-8. And yes to you anal folks Jacumba is not on I-8, but it is the closest town to where I was. This was probably no more than 6 or 7 kms from the border and no direct/official access for dozens of kms at a guess. Driving in pitch black and then I see lights like out of the Close Encounters movie, where the helicopter comes up the road except I was the one moving. I thought the aliens had landed. Then as I crested the hill I realized that they were portable arc lights and there was some sort of checkpoint set up. I though a murderer had escaped a local prison or something. That is the only time I'd ever seen something like that in Canada. All they wanted was to look for Mexicans in my back seat and trunk (the boot, for all you English English speakers). They didn't know I had a dozen in the glove box. Then they let me go. FWIW, I did stop in Jacumba once. They have a hot springs "spa" there and its bar looks like the modern equivalent of one in the town at the end of The Outlaw Jose Wales where the silver lode had run out. Mind you the town kind of had that look too (at least at that time).

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Sez Zero]

It was an Interior Checkpoint, which is the "third layer" of border patrol. The checkpoint in question it only about 10 or 20 miles from the US-Mexico border, just to the east of El Paso, situated on a stretch of I10 that has very few alternate routes.

I'm not sure about the legality or Constitutionality of these checkpoints, but if I were setting up a third layer to catch people that have slipped past the first two, this seems like a really good spot to do so.

No highways to the east get any closer to the border until you get down to the tip of Texas near Big Bend Ranch State Park. I10 past El Paso parallels the US-Mexico border for 60-80 miles. The checkpoint is located just where I10 turns into the interior of Texas; the perfect place to catch people that snuck across the border where it parallels I10 and are traveling east.

I've been through that border checkpoint probably more than half a dozen times. I've never seen any drugs dogs out, however.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure his existing legal history is more of a turn-off than marijuana possession.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[not already in use]

Yes, because once you reach your destination, all you have to do is look in a phone book under "dope" to score some weed. Either that, or yell very loudly in a crowded area, "DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND SOME WEED?"

Anyway, after years of smoking "dope" myself, I'm still able to use the correct version of "you're" in my writing.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[datavirtue]

You are subject to those intrusions because the road is a privilege not a right. blah blah blah

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[catmistake]

I made it through that checkpoint clean, with a small amount, didn't get caught, and I had JUST blazed about 10 miles before the checkpoint. Officers stopped me, very likely smelled it, but let me through anyway without even a second glance.

HINT TO GEO: travel with lots of cats.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[datavirtue]

What is a hipster?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Think of it as a sane oasis, surrounded by a wasteland of angry mutants circling around it in dune buggies.

I saw that movie, I didn't realize it was a documentary. :)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from West Texas..are you talking about the one on I10 a good ways east of El Paso in the middle of nowhere? Those guys usually give a pretty good "once over" to anything that rolls through.....

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're sending a dog around to sniff a vehicle you've randomly chosen, you're *already* performing the search before the dog alerts. The use of the dog is *part* of the search process.

You need a warrant, or probable cause' to perform a search.

So, either basic logic escapes you, or you're simply unaware that they don't just have random dogs wandering around the checkpoint aimlessly. I'm betting it's the prior.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the blind hatred of the US (evident in many of your posts)? No matter what they do, nothing will compare up to the evils your country has committed. Geez, you'd think a little more tolerance would have been learned by now...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing us a favor. I'm betting you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anrego]

I imagine all the stuff that would come up for him on google is going to trump a minor possession charge.

Anyone hiring him is probably hiring him specifically because of his legal history.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense is not in the US genetic code.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[snowgirl]

The reality is the west Texas I-10 check point outside El Paso may be 30-40 miles from the city, but that stretch of I-10 closely (within 2-5 miles) parallel's the border for about 50-60 miles, and the checkpoint is located where the highway/border start to diverege.

What about the border checkpoint between Las Cruces and Truth or Consequences?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[GameboyRMH]

Or less?

Ouch, nobody get caught with a THC molecule...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[snowgirl]

If you're sending a dog around to sniff a vehicle you've randomly chosen, you're *already* performing the search before the dog alerts. The use of the dog is *part* of the search process.

Wrong. Police officers can react to anything that is in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent".

They already stop EVERYONE (when they're open) and ask you a few simple questions. If they see a kilo of coke sitting in the passenger seat, then that gives them reasonable cause for a search. If they smell pot, then that gives them reasonable cause for a search. If a dog alerts to pot, then that gives them reasonable cause for a search.

At no point are they actually searching you in the legal sense, you were just retarded enough to let your crime become evident outside of your car. (They do not need a warrant to look at your car, or smell your car.)

So, either basic logic escapes you, or you're simply unaware that they don't just have random dogs wandering around the checkpoint aimlessly. I'm betting it's the prior.

I've been through these checkpoints a lot. They don't normally have random dogs wandering around, but it wouldn't surprise me that for SXSW, they would bring dogs out and have them just hanging out near where the cars stop. (They stop one at a time.)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because a police officer would never lie about smelling pot.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[GameboyRMH]

So it's like Wellspring?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[similar_name]

Perhaps, but now he has to tell any future employers that he has a drug-related criminal record

If it's a small enough amount he can probably have it expunged.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[GameboyRMH]

Pretty obscure group, you probably haven't heard of them. *flips scarf*

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[bws111]

Genius, sheer genius. Use Willie Nelson as evidence that getting busted for pot must be a frame job.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[countach74]

Our prisons are so full because they are largely privatized, which in turn lends to the large corporations that own the prisons to lobby for ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws and other things that lead to lots of prisoners. Just like everything else in the United States, money is power and the power is used to get more money and thus, more power. It's a vicious cycle. Most US citizens either loath how the system works or are oblivious to it and think their votes still do something.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get life in prison for a joint in Texas. Yes, life. Last year, there was a case where a guy was dumb enough to be smoking at a bus stop. The cop tackled him, the joint brushed the cop's arm then landed by the street.

Result: Three felonies. Assault on a peace officer (the lit joint contacting the cop's arm), obstructing justice, and attempted destruction of evidence (since the perp let go of the marijuana as he was taken to the ground.) With TX's three strikes law, that is an additional 20-life. Said guy got convicted on all three counts, and now a TDCJ "guest", whose only purpose in life is to ensure a dividend for the private lockup he is now at.

Been to most counties in Texas? Most judges outside of Austin, Houston, or Dallas will rubberstamp the max penalty of law every time. Heck, Williamson county north of Austin will arrest and book people if they run a light (and have won Supreme Court cases on that.) This is because virtually all prisons and jails in the state are privately owned, and that a judge will not be re-elected if he doesn't "show he is tough on crime", (i.e. make sure he gets the lobbyist campaign contributions from the prison companies.) So, it is common for someone who got busted with a joint to find themselves in a private county cooler for a year, or a "guest" of TDCJ for 2 years.

Geohot's sentence is all dependant on how much cash he gets for a defense team. If he was someone who needs a PD, he will be a "guest" for at least a year, perhaps more.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Delgul]

He can come work for me in the Netherlands any time. We don't care much about this kind of stuff... Even better... If you say "I didn't inhale" here everyone looks at you like you are really really stupid ;-)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually I didn't understand that. If that's the important part, then I think the summary could have made that a lot clearer, because without that point I was ready to ask "whats the point of this story...is this TMZ for nerds?"

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Austin. Sometimes I have to leave the city. Once you get about 20 miles away you are hit with the realization that you do actually live in Texas.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because a police officer would never lie about smelling pot.

How, prey tell, does a police dog lie about smelling pot? Don't you know that Officer McGruffNEVER lies?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[StikyPad]

No, it's not the fact that dogs hit on the vehicle, but that the vehicle was stopped in the first place. The GP said probable cause, but that's the wrong label -- the justification for stopping someone is called "reasonable suspicion." The Supreme Court even admitted that checkpoints were unconstitutional when they narrowly found that their unconstitutionality was outweighed by the interest of public safety. I believe this ruling was wrong, and that responsible citizens should be pushing for laws that clearly define random checkpoints as illegal fishing expeditions (as has been done in several states), but that's how things stand right now at the federal level.

The second problem is that CBP is conducting the checkpoints, and there's a very real question as to whether they're overstepping their authority by conducting checkpoints well inside the border. From CBP's own website: "A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officerâ(TM)s border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states that, 'All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.'" http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/authority_to_search.xml By definition, something that is outside of the customs area is already inside the U.S., not "arriving in the U.S." It's admittedly a grey area, because CBP clearly needs the authority to pursue people who cross illegally, but they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of citizens in the process.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The meth guys just use their dirt bikes and scoot around the checkpoint.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[rrohbeck]

^ This.
I had to spend some time in the DFW area. Worst time of my life. Sigh.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Tanuki64]

Hahaha.... Even if this were true, I don't live in the past.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[oldmac31310]

He bears a remarkable resemblance to Shaggy from Scooby Do. Anyone else think so?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[X0563511]

I'm into modern music and have never heard of it either...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

We locals say we like being in Austin because you can look in any direction and see Texas.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[X0563511]

It's a shame Texas didn't get away with secession.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

like the plague in that part of the state.

So close to oxymoron.
I know the obvious answer but I'll set someone up for it: Why would you have pot in Texas?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for one thing, it could react to its owner's body language, not to mention the fact that the indicators that a drug dog "hit" on something are completely arbitrary and up to the interpretation of the K9 officer.

A drug dog that spends an extra fraction of a second sniffing something interesting could be "probable cause" for them to tear your car apart and detain you for hours on the side of the road, and all the dog could be smelling is a damn Slim Jim wrapper. If a K9 officer wants to search your car they can fabricate "probable cause" just as easily as any other officer.

This is why they don't want people filming them. Because half of them are fucking douchebag powertripping assholes that didn't think you showed the proper deference to their authority after they spent 25 minutes sitting in their air-conditioned cruiser with your driver's license playing with their dick and they're going to make you fucking pay. Either in time or money, no slight is too minor to warrant vicious, disproportionate retribution.

America! Fuck Yeah!!

Captcha: Despair. Which is what you'll feel if you have the audacity to question a fucking cop.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope... it is a chunk of southern California these days, thanks to all the rejects from CA bringing themselves and their problems to central TX because there are jobs here.

As a native Austinite, I know what will happen. The spray tan crowd will drive up property values to astromonical heights, then things will crash because Austin has no transportation infrastructure, and the LA rejects will take their duck lips back to California once the jobs dry up. Happened in the 1980s, same type of people, except they drove BMWs instead of Priuses back then.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[craash420]

He was caught with a molecule, everything's bigger in Texas.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Creepy]

Texas wins the number 2 slot in my google search (may be the same source, I didn't rtfa, just looked for Texas):
http://blog.norml.org/2011/05/16/alternet-the-five-worst-states-to-get-busted-with-pot/
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/150935/the_5_worst_states_to_get_busted_with_pot?page=entire

I don't touch the stuff personally, but I know people that do (none in Texas).

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Genda]

So now the dawg has some street cred, f'shizzle

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Genda]

No I chewed and my lungs are thanking me!

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ravenscar]

You should definitely spend your time in Mexico. The police there are much more upstanding.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The second problem is that CBP is conducting the checkpoints, and there's a very real question as to whether they're overstepping their authority by conducting checkpoints well inside the border. From CBP's own website: "A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officerâ(TM)s border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states that, 'All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.'" http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/authority_to_search.xml By definition, something that is outside of the customs area is already inside the U.S., not "arriving in the U.S." It's admittedly a grey area, because CBP clearly needs the authority to pursue people who cross illegally, but they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of citizens in the process.

So persons entering the US by plane can only be searched by CBP while they're still in the air? AWESOME! I always suspected those customs checkpoints located in US airports were illegal.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Illinois and didn't know what SXSW was [...] Why the submitter and editor thought anybody not in the southwest US would have a clue what it is is beyond me.

Really? Are you trolling, or just that out of touch?

SXSW is one of the largest annual music, "emerging tech", and film conferences in the US, and it is commonly (i.e., on NPR - not exactly a "specialist" news outlet) referred to as "SXSW." It draws people from all over the country, and the world. It couldn't have taken you more than 10 seconds to figure out what it meant, but I bet it took you about 5 minutes to type this complaint out on your large-print tty terminal, and then submit it to the electronical magic board.

But okay, we'll stay off your lawn, grandpa. I'll tell ma to bring you your dentures, and some of those soft oatmeal cookies you like.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Tanuki64]

Probably yes. But probably the same could be said about the police in China.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[EvilBudMan]

No, that's Texas. I bet they have the strongest laws on the books. I'd say 90 days and some fines.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, why was he at the border? Last I checked Austin is over 200miles to the border.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[EvilBudMan]

Did you know they even have there own power grid?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[niado]

You can get life in prison for a joint in Texas. Yes, life. Last year, there was a case where a guy was dumb enough to be smoking at a bus stop. The cop tackled him, the joint brushed the cop's arm then landed by the street.

Result: Three felonies. Assault on a peace officer (the lit joint contacting the cop's arm), obstructing justice, and attempted destruction of evidence (since the perp let go of the marijuana as he was taken to the ground.) With TX's three strikes law, that is an additional 20-life. Said guy got convicted on all three counts, and now a TDCJ "guest", whose only purpose in life is to ensure a dividend for the private lockup he is now at.

I'm gonna go with [citation needed] on this one. It seems ludicrous, but if it's true I'd like to read more about it.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the *right* to travel the *public* roads, which *my taxes* helped pay for, without undue interference on the part of law enforcement or anybody else.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for one thing, it could react to its owner's body language, not to mention the fact that the indicators that a drug dog "hit" on something are completely arbitrary and up to the interpretation of the K9 officer.

A drug dog that spends an extra fraction of a second sniffing something interesting could be "probable cause" for them to tear your car apart and detain you for hours on the side of the road, and all the dog could be smelling is a damn Slim Jim wrapper. If a K9 officer wants to search your car they can fabricate "probable cause" just as easily as any other officer.

None of that amounts to the dog lying about anything. If you believe that the dogs are lying in these situations, I suggest you put down the bong for a while.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Ghostworks]

That said, you'd think people would have heard about this and avoid I-10 like the plague in that part of the state.

Or they could, you know, not bring weed into Texas. It's not like it's hard to find anywhere in America. Sure, there'll be a premium for competing with other tourists, just like with food, lodging, and gas. But does that really make taking it across state lines (on a week you know they're going to step up their presence on highways to deal with all the out-of-towners) seem like a good idea?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[timothy]

Pretty hard to avoid I-10, really, at least for a big chunk of the state. It's the main way to get to central Texas (or anywhere east), unless you want to take some pretty big detours, if you're following at least certain otherwise obvious paths from pts. west of El Paso. You could go way north, but otherwise ... well, it's pretty bleak: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierra%20Blanca,%20Texas

I've been through that stop quite a few times, but I guess I just look too clean-living to even bother with the dogs ...

timothy

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[NicknameAvailable]

HINT TO GEO: travel with lots of cats.

lmfao

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

That pretty much describes Williamson and Hays counties perfectly.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit ambiguous, actually. Did you mean that he plays skin flutes merely on Satan's behalf, or does he actually fellate the Prince of Darkness personally?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[LostAlaska]

Luckily Austin is sort of the oasis for liberals who live in Texas. While still being conservative it does have a higher (pun intended) ratio of liberals. At least that's how a friend from Texas once explained it to me.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Ihmhi]

I've been through that stop quite a few times, but I guess I just look too clean-living to even bother with the dogs ...

timothy

And secretly, timothy's hollow eyeglass frames are filled with LSD.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ahodgson]

And in the public systems, the prison employee unions lobby for the same crap. It's all downhill.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

I don't touch the stuff personally

Me either I have my personal assistant hold it, I'm glad someone else had the same idea.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[ravenshrike]

Bullshit, every test done on the dogs that is remotely based on science has shown that flipping a coin is more likely to get a correct result. The vast majority of the time the dogs are taking cues from their handlers, just like Mr. Ed.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

My bullshit meter went off on that one as well. Tackled for a J seems a bit excessive not to mention someone openly smoking in public where they know such harsh laws exist is a bit far fetched as well.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Gutboy]

Wrong. Police officers can react to anything that is in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent"

Not true. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) that the police can not use infrared cameras to locate "suspicious" concentrations of heat in private places and then get warrants to search. So anything that escapes is not "in plain sight".

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

I'm from Texas and living in the US and have never heard of it.

On a side note I'd say Burning Man is more popular.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

When I read the summary I thought Willie Nelson was the sheriff he was turned over to.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

Only time I have remotely thought my votes counted were when I voted on American Idol.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[cas2000]

It's not the dog that lies, it's the police officer "interpreting" the dog.

police dogs have long been used like this as a proxy for illegal racial and subcultural (hippies, goths, ravers and other weirdoes) profiling. or whenever a cop just needs an excuse for a search without actual probable cause.

and even without deliberate lying, there's also a feedback loop - the dogs are sensitive to their handlers' reactions. if a cop doesn't like the look of you because you're a long-haired freak or walking while black or something similarly nefarious, then the dog will pick up on that and react. the dogs end up reacting to the sight of such profiling targets because they know their handler will reward them and tell them what a good dog they are.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

If you pay taxes then said road is not a privilege.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Sloppy]

Why would you go through a border checkpoint with marijuana unless you wanted to get caught?

It's not a border checkpoint; it's a Border Patrol checkpoint, and those aren't necessarily at borders. OTOH these checkpoints are at fixed and well-known locations (if you've either been there before or have researched it). I can't drive between Albuquerque and Las Cruces without going through one, so I know all about 'em, but naively look at a map and you'd probably never guess.

This is merely a symptom of inexperience, not stupidity. Even Khan's pattern indicated two dimensional thinking...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

More than that, he was going to SXSW. In Austin. There's more Cannabis in Austin, than any other place in Texas!

He obviously didn't do his homework on the target demographic for SXSW.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[snowgirl]

Wrong. Police officers can react to anything that is in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent"

Not true. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) that the police can not use infrared cameras to locate "suspicious" concentrations of heat in private places and then get warrants to search. So anything that escapes is not "in plain sight".

The ruling in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) held that the police cannot use equipment not available to the general public to perform searches of a person's home. The home has always had a very strong 4th amendment protection, while cars have less so. Namely, you almost always need a warrant to search a person's house, rather than just reasonable cause for suspicion. (If you see a kilo of coke brought into a house, you need a warrant. If you see a kilo of coke placed into a car, you can stop and search on reasonable suspicion after it leaves the person's property.)

The SCOTUS also held in Illinois v. Caballes that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[g0bshiTe]

New Vegas?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[GmExtremacy]

It also seems completely pointless that we're wasting our time arresting people for victimless crimes.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Sloppy]

Ridiculous and effective aren't antonyms. We could send cops house to house down every street and successfully catch a lot of people with their pants down (effective) but it would be ridiculous too.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[afidel]

I wonder why nobody has fought a conviction on the grounds that it is an illegal search? It's not like there's any constitutional foundation for the federal government to be putting up checkpoints in the middle of a state, quite the opposite really.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[guttentag]

What is a hipster

According to a post somewhere else on slashdot the other day (I'm paraphrasing):

hipster n
a person is likely to burn his mouth by eating pizza before it is cool

With apologies to the originator of the joke I have now butchered.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Fjandr]

Only 10% of the prison population in the USA is incarcerated in private prisons.

While I don't agree with private prisons, 10% does not constitute "largely privatized."

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats with all the logic?! I wanna hear more about how much the cops suck because someone had something in their possession that was illegal. I get people want to smoke it and I could care less but its illegal people need to stop complaining when they get caught.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Cederic]

I live in Illinois and didn't know what SXSW was

That says more about you and Illinois than SXSW. Shit, there's a constant stream of news about what's happening there and I don't even live on the same continent.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Whorhay]

I've never heard of that, do you have any repuatable sources for that?

I can see where for drug sniffing dogs it'd be in the Police's interest to have a dog behave in such a way. But for bomb sniffing it'd be very counterproductive and even dangerous. And seeing as how it's just training the dog to different smells it is hard to imagine that drug dogs would be simply theatre.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very dangerous advice that i've heard more than once. I've been to sxsw and the cops like to make examples of folks. I've known many people who were singled out and busted for silly offenses. Austin wants your money and your freedom.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I've known about it for over a decade. If you ever watched Austin City Limits on PBS you probably have heard of it.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Lehk228]

you are subject to those intrusions because, as of yet, few or no people are willing to lead an insurrection over those intrusions. the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Fjandr]

Unfortunately, the USSC ruled long ago that roadblocks are a reasonable warrantless search.

You can thank MADD for helping pave that particular superhighway to run right through the 4th Amendment.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Fjandr]

I'm not from the area, but know lots of musicians and a number of industry insiders from all over the country, and today is the first I've heard of it.

So, while it may be popular, it's certainly not universally known.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[blackwizard]

It varies widely by state.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[mcl630]

Roads are not a "privilege"... however driving is.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

There are Border Patrol stations all over the country - at least those parts within maybe 100 miles of the border. I've been through checkpoints in a couple of places in Texas, in New Mexico, and two or three places in California.

All pointless and stupid as none of them (so far as I know) is operational 24/7 and checking the occupants of every single vehicle. The inspectors apparently like to think that the bad guys don't verify the station is closed before simply driving past it.

If there were such stations within 100 miles of all of our borders and all of our coastlines, they might be effective at something. Mostly they'd be effective at raising a public outcry over the infringement of liberties.

I'm thinking that placing such checkpoints at the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels in NYC and on the Dulles Airport road near DC would be a good place to start.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

cocaine is victimless too, until you take it.
(waits for it... waits for it...)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[MisterMidi]

It was, but a mutation caused some genetic codes to be exchanged, resulting in common law instead of common sense.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

It's also on federal land and thus federal laws take effect.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[I(rispee_I(reme]

How, prey tell, does a police dog lie about smelling pot?

The same way a horse lies about knowing math, I suspect.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[doston]

Marijuana possesion, can result in highly variable punishments depending on jurisdiction, meaning in some location it is treated about like a speeding ticket with a small fine, in others it may mean near maditory jail time, with potential alternatives like rehab or treatment / awareness programs. A decade or so ago a newphew of mine was in New Orleans during Mardi Gras and the passenger in his car had a personal use amount on him that he threw under the seat when the police ticketed them for a parking violation, searched the car and found the joint under the seat. As a result my newphew spent Mardi Gras weekend in jail in New Orleans, as a first offense he was given a suspended sentence which was removed from his record after a year with no other legal problems, and he had to take some sort of drug awareness class and check in with a probabtion officer.

For those not located in a more enlightened state with dispensaries, a forced treatment / awareness program could be a great way to find a new dealer. You want 3-4 emergency backup dealers living in a square state.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

Oddly enough, I've gone through all border patrol spots many many times with no issues. It's all in how timid and shaky you are. It's also about how much you have that look in your eyes of, "god I hope this guy doesn't look in my trunk".

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

Reasonable search... reasonable is key word.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[MisterMidi]

I don't know how they train the dogs in the US, but here they're trained to sit down if they smell something they're trained to detect. I don't see how that can be misinterpreted, the dog either sits down or doesn't.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

What is their reasonable cause to make me slow down or stop in the first place? None.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

It's those people that don't to go to wikipedia to look up things they don't know.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[arkane1234]

Notice there is none of that in Texas. Therefor, he can't be caught with it.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's 20 miles, international trade law allows commercial traffic 20 miles into the country to do freight relays, so the actual checkpoints are always positioned 20 miles from the border. That being said who cares, Pot is becoming legal all over the country state by state, Texas just happens to be one of the most draconian states that refuses to see that the majority want marijuana prohibition gone.

I realize this is a tech oriented audience here, and most probably don't smoke pot, and probably have the government's view on it drilled into their heads, maybe I am wrong, more people in America polled support legalization then do not. Personally I think Alcohol is more dangerous then pot will ever be, let alone the thousands of horrible prescription medications they hand out like candy.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[1729]

You can get life in prison for a joint in Texas. Yes, life. Last year, there was a case where a guy was dumb enough to be smoking at a bus stop. The cop tackled him, the joint brushed the cop's arm then landed by the street.

Result: Three felonies. Assault on a peace officer (the lit joint contacting the cop's arm), obstructing justice, and attempted destruction of evidence (since the perp let go of the marijuana as he was taken to the ground.) With TX's three strikes law, that is an additional 20-life. Said guy got convicted on all three counts, and now a TDCJ "guest", whose only purpose in life is to ensure a dividend for the private lockup he is now at.

Got a citation for that? I tried searching for the case, and the only thing I found that was similar was the case of Tyrone Brown, who was sentenced to life imprisonment (and eventually pardoned) after failing a probation-mandated drug test.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[snowgirl]

Whats with all the logic?! I wanna hear more about how much the cops suck because someone had something in their possession that was illegal. I get people want to smoke it and I could care less but its illegal people need to stop complaining when they get caught.

Ok, two things here: yeah, most people should stop complaining when they get caught. but two) if the cops overstep their lawful powers, and the person never would have been caught if the police had followed the law, then damn fucking straight a person should be pissed.

The government is held to a different standard than most people, because they hold the monopoly on force. As a result, the government cannot let the ends justify the means. The government, and their agents must always be acting as faithfully within the law as possible.

The problem here is that people seem to think that the police shouldn't be allowed to have a drug dog sniff their car, because that somehow violates their 4th amendment rights. But they all forget about the myriad other issues that come into lawful and constitutional searches that do not involve a warrant.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[snowgirl]

What is their reasonable cause to make me slow down or stop in the first place? None.

They're a border control point, they're stopping EVERYONE. The courts have consistently ruled that if you're stopping everyone utilizing a privilege, then there is no unlawful stop.

Try and use this argument for coming into the country, and see how far you get...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[shutdown -p now]

Gee, so much for the 4th amendment. What next, "border" checks in Kansas or something?

No, but there are already checkpoints and regular stops in Maine and NY. More to follow, because "Customs and Border Protection also maintains that it can set up roadblocks—it prefers the term "temporary permanent checkpoints" for legal reasons—and question people on trains and buses or at transportation stations anywhere within 100 air miles of a U.S. border or seacoast. This broadly defined border zone encompasses most of the nation's major cities and the entirety of several states, including Florida, Michigan, Hawaii, Delaware, New Jersey, and five of the six New England states."

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but CA isn't retarded and really doesn't care about a small amount.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Isaac-1]

Perhaps some are about 75 miles from the border, howver at least one example on that map makes such exception understandable. Namely the one in Marfa, TX, sure it is a good way from the border, howerver going south out of Marfa all those miles to the Mexican border is only one narrow highway winding through the mountains, when I drove it (and had a flat tire on it) about 15 years ago there was nothing south of Marfa (Marfa is not much of a town either, maybe 1 or 2 motels, and that is aout it, the only place to buy a tire there 15 years ago was a little old full service garage/service station) until you reach the border, no homes, not stores, barely any place to pull over and change a flat for that matter.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[X0563511]

Heard of what on what?

Oh, TV - that thing I don't watch :P

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Go behind the Greyhound bus station in any city in America. You'll find drugs, hookers and fake ID within 30 seconds.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

That is highly unlikely. The story is very poorly written and only mentions he was arrested. Now unless he was transporting more than a few ounces, what will probably happen is he'll show up before the judge and receive a fine.

Being arrested doesn't automatically give you a criminal record. You have to be charged and convicted of something more serious than carrying a dime baggy around.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Bing Tsher E]

How does cocaine become a victim after someone 'takes it'?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Bing Tsher E]

The shame is that more people don't figure out where these dogs are kenneled and blast the area with a thick cloud of anhydrous ammonia.

Whoops, that fuckin' dog don't smell nothin' no more.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Fjandr]

Yes, states vary in percentages. I was speaking of the overall prison population of the entire United States as a whole.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Grishnakh]

It's not pointless at all. It makes tons of money for private prison corporations. Are you a communist or something?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll one up you - I refuse to travel to the USA while they have such ridiculous notions of "national security" and tell my friends and family to do the same.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Svartalf]

Considering that I can train a dog to sit on cue, in a situation other than smelling something they're trained to detect, it should be noted that your reasoning is off.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The REAL shame is people like you suggesting things like this in response to other peoples' being assholes about this stuff...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Xacid]

Who pays for those roads?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[euroq]

I have never had a job which cared about pot, and I have only had nice jobs. In fact, one application said "Please list any felony crimes, excluding marijuana related charges."

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

SXSW music is an industry event, not a festival. Sure there are 1400 bands playing here this week, but there are also industry executives, promoters, etc., attending panels and talking about the business. I think it's the largest music industry event.

There's also a film conference, though it's not the biggest of those by far. The panels are mostly for indie film developers and those wanting to break into the business.

But as a Slashdot reader you should know what SXSW is because the interactive festival is the largest social media and internet startup event of the year. This is where Twitter took off, Foursquare launched, and thousands of other little companies look for customers and someone to buy them out.

They are also launching SX comedy and education conferences as well as one for gaming. I think SX Interactive wanted to be what GDC became, but instead all the Internet companies moved in.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Their, dude, their...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Raenex]

They're a border control point, they're stopping EVERYONE.

Which is exactly the problem. Somebody traveling within the country in Texas on a public road shouldn't be subjected to a mandatory border control stop. A border crossing, yes. An interstate highway, no.

Try and use this argument for coming into the country, and see how far you get...

That's what they actually were granted authority for, yet it has gone down the slippery slope to policing huge swaths of areas where certain constitutional rights have disappeared, regardless if you are actually crossing the border or not.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[MisterMidi]

I was specifically talking about (mis)interpreting and not about the obvious facts that dogs can be trained to sit on cue or be influenced by their handlers.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[EvilBudMan]

I wasn't joking, there is an eastern power grid and a western power grid and also a Texas one. Texas is almost like a separate country.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[countach74]

Hmm, appears you're right about the percentage. Not sure why I thought it was higher (although 10% is still significant).

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Stuarticus]

It's more an "industry" affair than a festival...

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[gstoddart]

Wow. That is truly sad. Well, I guess I can stop thinking about driving through New England anytime soon ... it's beginning to sound like the East Germany of yore.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[GameboyRMH]

Keeps that nasty smell off your hands. You can use chopsticks too XD

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[KaoticEvil]

That said, you'd think people would have heard about this and avoid THAT STATE like the plague.

Fixed that for you ;) (And I live in Texas. Have for a decade now...)

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're a border control point, they're stopping EVERYONE. The courts have consistently ruled that if you're stopping everyone utilizing a privilege, then there is no unlawful stop.

Which flies in the face of at least the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

They also say your personal garden is regulable as interstate commerce and that the governmnet is justified to put people in concentration camps on the basis of their race, but those are bullshit too.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[bill_mcgonigle]

I get people want to smoke it and I could care less but its illegal people need to stop complaining when they get caught.

Congrats, you're what's wrong with the system. The People have a responsibility to evaluate the legitimacy of the laws, not just the courts.

It was illegal to help slaves escape to Canada too, or to hide Jews in Germany. Congrats on being a 'fine law-abiding-citizen'.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[bill_mcgonigle]

equipment not available to the general public

I will not talk about the Sony Boobiecam, I will not talk about the Sony Boobiecam. Oh, wait, those were withdrawn from the market. Phew.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

police dogs have long been used like this as a proxy for illegal racial and subcultural (hippies, goths, ravers and other weirdoes) profiling

Right, because hippies, goths, ravers and other wierdos are known for using the same amount of drugs (or fewer) as everyone else!

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Fjandr]

Probably because there's a lot of anti-private-prison coverage, and (unfortunately for any rational discourse) there are many groups who are perfectly willing to make numbers up to bolster their case even if making those numbers up isn't actually necessary. I've fallen victim to it myself on a number of occasions.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Scrameustache]

in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent".

It's not "plain" if you need a specially trained dog to detect it for you.

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Alarash]

You do realize that /. has got an international audience, right? Why should I know/care about some music festival in Texas when we've got equally large in Europe?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[dontPanik]

If you don't care about American music festivals... why are you reading this article?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[Alarash]

I care about the context of the article? I don't think the article was about US music festivals, was it?

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[dontPanik]

The guy the article's about was going to SXSW to do a talk when he got arrested.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't share a car with Willie Nelson and Snoop Dogg.

Re:Solution

[Quiet_Desperation]

Why not? Sounds like a decent road trip, actually.

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? Sounds like a decent road trip, actually.

Not to mention plausible deniability.

"That's not my weed, officer."

Re:Solution

[n30na]

Or a really bad movie.

Re:Solution

[vagabond_gr]

Furthermore:

1. obey the law
2. use common sense
3. stop immediately
4. turn that shit off
5. be polite
6. shut the fuck up
7. get a white friend
8. don't ride with a mad woman

Re:Solution

[tsotha]

Yeah, and just like every decent road trip movie, at some point all the characters spend a night in jail.

Re:Solution

[Isaac-1]

How about toss the dope out the window, I have not driven through this particular check point in about 6 years, but when I was last there they had signs up miles in advance saying all I-10 traffic must exit at check the point..

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, country and rap. The two worst forms of "music" combined at long last!

Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US border

[rwade]

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught. Should this surprise anyone?

Fuck this law

[raind]

and Fuck Texas.

Re:Fuck this law

[ISoldat53]

I'll second that!

Re:Fuck this law

[Quiet_Desperation]

Phew! All of it?! Well, OK...

Re:Fuck this law

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone documented an attempt of this a few years ago, but she ran out of steam in Dallas...

If you know what I mean.

Re:Fuck this law

[webmistressrachel]

Third!

Re:Fuck this law

[Brett Buck]

Yes, how dare they arrest someone for possession of illegal Class 1 narcotics. The NERVE!

Re:Fuck this law

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sweet ignorance. Tiss bliss, no?

Re:Fuck this law

[EvilBudMan]

Don't be so hasty. Texas has jobs.

Re:Fuck this law

[Anonymous Coward]

illegal Class 1 narcotics like fentanyl ? ho right that thing more potent than heroine is legal with a prescription, cannabis is schedule 1, how retarded...

Re:Fuck this law

[GmExtremacy]

Yes, how dare they arrest someone for a victimless crime!

Seriously. It takes some nerve to waste society's time, money, and resources arresting people for victimless crimes and then potentially harming someone greatly.

Im still wondering...

[Immostlyharmless]

How exactly these things (armed BP checkpoint charlies) are legal under the 4th Amendment.....they certainly shouldn't be. :(

Re:Im still wondering...

[ISoldat53]

They are adjacent to the border. Under customs laws, you can be searched if it can be shown that you have or might have entered the country via the road the check point is on.

Re:Im still wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does that apply to I-10?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_10

Re:Im still wondering...

[bobcat7677]

Simple. The 4th amendment says you are protected from "unreasonable" search. The legal system has long held that it is "reasonable" to be searched without a warrant at borders (and in fact within 100 miles of the border under certain circumstances) as anyone travelling across that border from abroad can be suspected of bringing contraband with them that is otherwise legal in other countries. Likewise, airport searches are allowed under the same "reasonableness" argument, though I think the standing is a little shaky there when it comes to domestic flights. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Re:Im still wondering...

[Immostlyharmless]

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border? Total crock of shit.....

Re:Im still wondering...

[Chakra5]

and at what % of people who are not actually entering the country does this stop being a rationally acceptable excuse?

Re:Im still wondering...

[whoever57]

Perhaps there is some decision supporting this, but I don't understand what power the Feds have to impose a barrier on movement from one privately owned location to another? I am of course speaking about the security checkpoints. If I understand it, courts have stated that the searches are constitutional because one can choose to not pass through. But surely the fact that the checkpoint exists is a restraint on freedom of movement? Has anyone challenged the security checkpoints on this basis?

Re:Im still wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an extended stretch in western texas within 2-5 miles of the border for tens of miles.

Warning - hitchhikers may be illegal aliens

Re:Im still wondering...

[forkfail]

As a matter of fact, yes, you do.

Re:Im still wondering...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border? Total crock of shit.....

Welcome to the United States of America.

Re:Im still wondering...

[Hatta]

They absolutely are not legal under the 4th amendment. This is just further proof of the illegitimacy of the US government.

Re:Im still wondering...

[marcop]

Yup. For 2/3 of US citizens the constitution doesn't apply:

http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

That seems perfectly reasonable to any true patriotic American. Why do people who disagree with this hate America so much. Hey, look, waffle covered corn dogs. Yum!

Re:Im still wondering...

[willpb]

The article doesn't say whether the drugs were just in the vehicle or actually on his person.
Since 1925 there has been a motor vehicle exception to the fourth amendment.

Re:Im still wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun thing about this is that local police departments have begun contracting out to the Border Patrol for things like tickets, because if a CBP agent catches you speeding, they can ask to search your vehicle and you have no right to refuse because it's a "border search".

Re:Im still wondering...

[ScentCone]

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border?

How do you feel when you go through customs/security at an airport, get on a plane, and spend three hours flying at several hundred MPH over your country before you actually cross the border? What you're saying is that either the checkpoint should be on an infinitely small line between two countries, or perhaps several miles out to sea where international waters begin ... or, no customs/security checks at all. Right? Please be specific.

Re:Im still wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

"searches made at the border... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." Indeed, the statute authorizing the search in this case derived ultimately from a statute first passed in 1789.

Re:Im still wondering...

[GmExtremacy]

According to some authority figures, maybe, but the 4th amendment says no such thing.

Re:Im still wondering...

[GmExtremacy]

Exactly why we need amendments to fix these loopholes.

Re:Im still wondering...

[ironjaw33]

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border?

How do you feel when you go through customs/security at an airport, get on a plane, and spend three hours flying at several hundred MPH over your country before you actually cross the border? What you're saying is that either the checkpoint should be on an infinitely small line between two countries, or perhaps several miles out to sea where international waters begin ... or, no customs/security checks at all. Right? Please be specific.

The plane isn't going anywhere but to an airport, where the passengers pass through customs and immigration. To reverse the analogy, it's as if the checkpoint was on a highway that led to or from the border with no intersecting roads, towns, or other places to stop.

Re:Im still wondering...

[shutdown -p now]

What he's saying is that checkpoints should be on border crossings, and the rest of the border should be patrolled - which is more or less how other countries do it. You shouldn't be assumed to have crossed the border just because you're Hispanic driving through a town that's many miles away from the border.

This is particularly dumb in U.S., where there's no standard identification card for citizens, nor a requirement for them to carry it or produce it on demand. As it is, there's no way to distinguish a citizen travelling entirely inside the U.S. from an illegal alien who has just crossed the border, unless you catch him in the act. Hence why it's framed in vague terms like "reasonable suspicion", which in practice amounts to the discretion of CBP agents - i.e. if they think that you're "suspicious" for whatever reason, they can pull you over and detain you until you can prove to them that you're a citizen. Does that strike you as normal?

Re:Im still wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you feel when you go through customs/security at an airport, get on a plane, and spend three hours flying at several hundred MPH over your country before you actually cross the border?

If they searched people who never crossed the boarded when they arrived at an international airport, I'd be just as pissed. Wouldn't you?

Re:Im still wondering...

[Jaysyn]

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border? Total crock of shit.....

Didn't you know? Most of the US lives in the Constitution-Free Zone.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Re:Im still wondering...

[roothog]

I'm amused that the ACLU's map has given West Virginia back to Virginia.

jailbreak?

[kirkb]

Is he going to post bail to get out of jail legally, or just jailbreak?

Re:jailbreak?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I don't see the problem. All he has to do is roll doubles.

Re:jailbreak?

[bytestorm]

Clever, if I had mod points, I'd throw some cash on Free Parking for you.

Re:jailbreak?

[rwise2112]

Well - jailbreaking is legal now, right?

"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very key that the poster used the word "when" when referring to the drug dogs, rather than saying "if they signal". Multiple studies have shown that drug dogs are essentially a fraudulent way to get around probable cause during a vehicle stop.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Uberbah]

Yep. I saw a drug bust once...cops had a car surrounded and brought out the drug dog. Basically went like this:

Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.

Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.

Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.

After the third time, the cops go ahead and search the car, but I sure couldn't see any "tell" from the dog. Wish I'd recorded it with my cellphone and given it to the defense attorney, but 1. it was a night and 2. I had a really shitty cell phone at the time.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so then how does that explain the pot they allegedly found? You probably also want to post some sort of citation as that definitely requires one.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Wait, you'll accept that a cop will intentionally signal to his dog to signal that the car contains contraband but won't accept that the cop will then plant contraband in the car after that point?

I mean, it is possible that's Clever Hans in action instead, but even if you're getting an unintentional leakage of information the search should be held as unreasonable and any attached evidence dismissed.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[rahvin112]

Every drug dog has a different signal.Their handler is trained to recognize it. Some dogs dig at the location, some sit, some look at the handler. There is no uniform signal because dogs can't talk so the dogs are often trained to react the same way they did the first time they found something which could be almost anything.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a well documented example of how law does not control rulers. They just make exceptions for themselves. Even when some of them seem to be on your side, the amorphous mass swarms past any particular individual standing up for whats right. The following describes some of the history of drug search check points. It describes court rulings and the response from police. It follows historical patterns of power expansion perfectly: http://www.flexyourrights.org/drug_checkpoint_ahead

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

One argument against "drug dogs" is that they usually signal by sitting down or something. I dunno, but even I've taught dogs to sit before.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that drug dogs are not falsifiable. ...so they are bullshit.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Taibhsear]

How very convenient. Perhaps they should train them in a uniform way so that we (the public) have a way to refute the evidence against us.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient...

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[EvilBudMan]

Some mark the trail too.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[NicknameAvailable]

How very convenient. Perhaps they should train them in a uniform way so that we (the public) have a way to refute the evidence against us.

While perhaps not an unreasonable claim taken as itself, when you consider these are, not the world's smartest animals, being trained by not the world's smartest government employees - you have to take reality into account. A more reasonable thing might be to have a document for each animal indicating what it's signal is, that is automatically admitted to court in any dog-signal-centered case.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[ScentCone]

Perhaps they should train them in a uniform way

You obviously don't know anything about dogs used in this way. They're not clones. They use a variety of breeds with completely different behavioral traits, sensitivities, specialties, and trainging backgrounds. The handlers have to know each individual dog, because even using a standard suite of training techniques, you'll get different tells once the dog gets it figured out. Every one of them is different. Sort of like some people are responding to this rationally, and you're responding to it with paranoia.

so that we (the public) have a way to refute the evidence against us.

That the dog signals something of interest isn't evidence. It's part of the probable cause picture. Just like when you tell a cop that you heard someone next door screaming for help. That's not evidence (yet), but it's part of the decision making process that the cop has to consider when he acts.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your Honor, the dog didn't respond in a uniform way, so that bag of pot they found isn't really a bag of pot."

The dog's reaction isn't evidence. The bag of pot they found is the evidence.

Their use of a drug dog is no different that using an x-ray machine or a flashlight.

And to continue to highlight your ignorance, the dogs are trained to stop when they find something. The dog was obviously telling its handler "I can already smell it you idiot. Stop pointing to the car." The cop has to do this three times to make sure he's reading the dog properly.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

That would defeat the purpose of having drug dogs. They are used to circumvent the 5th Amendment.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

It's part of the probable cause picture.

I think it's ridiculous that such a thing is even considered probable cause in the first place.

Just like when you tell a cop that you heard someone next door screaming for help.

I don't think that's analogous to nearly unfalsifiable drug dog signals.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[ScentCone]

I don't think that's analogous to nearly unfalsifiable drug dog signals.

Nobody is asking you (who heard a scream) to qualify what was later found to be evidence of a crime. Likewise, the dog is just saying, "Hey! You know that thing you trained me to notice if we come across it, and which I can detect at a tiny fraction of the strength that you can, with your stupid primate nose? I think I just noticed it." Just like you might say, "I may not hear a lot of non-actor women screaming in real life, but I think I know it when I hear it. Over there."

I think it's ridiculous that such a thing is even considered probable cause in the first place.

Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie. I have watched them unerringly find one of three species of birds (while ignoring all others) on the merest whiff, in a steady breeze, from a hundred yards away. And that bird is always, always there. For responding, accurately, to specific smells, I trust those dogs' noses better than any other device, mechanism, or technique I have ever witnessed. I would say it was not possible if I hadn't seen it over, and over again hundreds and hundreds of times, like clockwork.

And just so you know, we've tested with live and (recently, as in 10 minutes ago) dead birds. It only takes a green dog about five encounters to know the difference between the two after the initial confusion. After that, they never get it wrong. Dogs trained professionally to signal on things like explosives and narcotics are absolutely to be considered worthy indicators of probable cause.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

A cop's ability to easily lie about what the dog's signal is is not the same thing as someone hearing a scream.

Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie.

No, no. The cops are the ones who lie. And ordinary citizens rarely have a chance at recourse.

And victimless crimes are pure idiocy, anyway.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[idontgno]

Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie.

I believe you. But you're arguing the wrong case. The accusation is not that the dog lied; the accusation is that the dog handler lied. In the scenario depicted, the dog gave no overtly discernible signal of interest, but somehow the officer decided it was a scent hit anyway and proceeded to search on that false probably cause.

Oh, I'm not saying you would do this, or even that the case described actually happened as described. Maybe the dog's signal was amazingly subtle, but accurately received and honestly acted on. But it's suspicious as hell. Probably cause that only the officer can attest to is inherently suspicious, and lying to secure improper probably cause isn't beyond imagination, especially with law officers who subscribe to "the ends justify any means".

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[ScentCone]

I'm addressing the notion that what a dog signals shouldn't be considered a viable source of probable cause.

I'd also disagree with the notion that someone who doesn't work with such dogs, and especially with a particular dog, would even know what they were seeing when it comes to how, whether, and when the dog is signaling and what the dog is signaling. And I don't have much trouble with the notion that a dog picking up on a likely nosefull in an area where people routinely smuggle guns, contraband, cash, and people makes it unreasonable to check it out. When that stuff is in the car, just like the dog guesses, done deal. When there's nothing there (because the dog's reading some off the tires, or it's far too windy, etc, or you actually are dealing with an Eeeeevil Cartoon Villain Cop Who Just Hates You Personally), it's just another pass through a border area that amounts to nothing.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the proof in the pudding? If no drugs are found when the dog 'signals', it should simply get a bullet to the head.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[rahvin112]

You apparently don't understand what falsifiable is. Just because you don't know what the dog's tell is doesn't mean that the dog can't be tested and verified accurate. Dog's can't lie, they can't deceive and they have one of best noses in the animal kingdom. Appropriately trained dogs can smell drugs wrapped in 50 layers of plastic and buried 2 feet deep in coffee grounds or submerged in gasoline. And they can be tested and are routinely as part of the job. You want to challenge the drug dogs tell in court? You could do it easily in court if the Judge will humor your stupidity. See all they have to do is hide a packet of drugs in the court then bring the dog in to find them (and likely everyone else that's got them as well). And when the dog finds the drugs you'll just have sunk your entire case and proved to the Jury you need to be convicted. That makes the dog's tell falsifiable by simply testing it and you an idiot for even suggesting that it's not falsifiable.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's what the dog was doing when he licked himself and smelled some other dog's ass. Signaling.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence against you is the drugs, dumbass.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[rahvin112]

The point you missed is that they can tell the difference between drove near other cars that had drugs and contains a bag right now. Dogs are almost 100% accurate in finding drugs or anything else they are trained to scent. You can disagree with it all you want though even if it's ignorant disagreement because you have zero experience with dogs or trained scenting dogs. Honestly you sound like a young earth Christian denying that the earth is more than 6000 years old because you KNOW it's not.

Dogs don't guess, they don't lie, they either scent or they don't, the training is teaching them to signal in some manner that they smell the target substance is present. Drug dogs are routinely tested (3-6 month testing cycle) and dismissed from the program if their sense of smell degrades and they can't pass the test in every case. In these tests neither the handler or the dog are present when the drugs are concealed. Because every dog has a different personality and every breed has different reactions, training methods and scenting quality each dog has different tells.

The most common scenting dogs are obsessive "toy" dogs, good candidates obsess over a particular toy (carry it around all the time and search for it relentlessly if it's not present) and are usually Shepards, labs or pit bulls. The dogs are trained by putting drug packets in the toy (usually a sock) and playing games where the toy is hidden and the dog searches for it. As the dog learns that the presence of drugs indicates the presence of their toy they move towards simply searching for drugs without the toy with the reward for finding the drugs being they receive the toy to play with for a period. This type of dog will typically aggressively dig, chew or attack the drug location.

But other breeds like cocker spaniels and others can't be trained in this manner because they don't exhibit the "toy" obsession of the other breeds. They are typically trained in radically different manners and their tell will be anything from sitting down, or pointing, or refusing to move, or barking or any other of hundreds of tells that are suited to that breed of dog, their personality and how they were trained. There are probably literally thousands of possible tells and the handler has to be trained with each dog they work with to recognize the tell and test that it's not a misinterpretation. Handlers are trained to go over the location or confirm the scent 2-3 times to ensure there are no misinterpretations by the handler (not the dog).

In fact it's silly to argue that a handler would lie about it because frankly if the police wanted to search without cause they wouldn't bother with a dog (that they will have to provide the testing certifications on) and would simply claim they could smell pot smoke in your car. So be like that young earth creationist and assert that every lay person in the world knows not only everything in the world about drug dogs but could detect their tell without fail along with denying what's been empirically proven millions of times, and that is dogs are nearly 100% accurate in finding what they are trained to find. They can follow a persons specific scent trail through a stadium with 50000 people in it, they can follow the scent through a swamp, days later and through all manner of deliberately confusing scents. They have one of the best noses in the animal kingdom, capable of scenting a specific substance through 10's of feet of other material and surrounded and wrapped in plastics. As and example Dogs routinely find drug packets wrapped in multiple layers of plastic and latex and immersed in the gasoline tank of a car. Until you've seen a dogs nose in use you simply can't comprehend how accurate it is, it's simply amazing.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[jmcvetta]

A more reasonable thing might be to have a document for each animal indicating what it's signal is, that is automatically admitted to court in any dog-signal-centered case.

That is, in fact, a completely reasonable suggestion.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your Honor, the dog didn't respond in a uniform way, so that bag of pot they found isn't admissible as evidence.

FTFY

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[ScentCone]

Who are you replying to, exactly?

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[KaoticEvil]

Which is exactly why they DON'T do it that way. They don't want us having a chance to fight back against trumped up charges and bogus evidence plants that have become such a routine part of this American "Justice System"... It is so pathetic. I hate it, I really do.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Anonymous Coward]

Or retire dogs and/or handlers that have an alarmingly high false positive rate.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

In fact it's silly to argue that a handler would lie about it because frankly if the police wanted to search without cause they wouldn't bother with a dog

The dog just makes it easier to lie.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Xest]

This was a very good post, but I'm intrigued about these parts:

"The most common scenting dogs are obsessive "toy" dogs, good candidates obsess over a particular toy (carry it around all the time and search for it relentlessly if it's not present) and are usually Shepards, labs or pit bulls."

"But other breeds like cocker spaniels and others can't be trained in this manner because they don't exhibit the "toy" obsession of the other breeds."

In the UK alsatians are generally used for dog handlers that do riot control, or tracking down criminals on the run, but rarely ever seem to be used for drugs/gun/explosive sniffing. The most common breed for that here nearly always seems to be springer spaniels, and a ball seems to be their toy of choice. Labs are sometimes used for this task also however.

For search and rescue it seems to be border collies that are most commonly used here.

It's interesting that different breeds seem to be focussed on different tasks in different countries.

For what it's worth I've got a pair of Lab/Border Collie crosses, they're both from the same litter but one looks distinctly like a lab, and the other distinctly like a border collie, and they both show the traits of their parent breeds much more so. The lab is excellent at finding things by scenting, and the collie is hopeless at it, but the collie is incredible at obeying probably well over a hundred different commands, whilst the lab is much more limited in this respect. The lab always likes to walk round with a toy in his mouth, and prefers not to give it back to you if he can help it, but the collie relentlessly returns it to you and knows how to flick his head to throw it right at your feet with unerring accuracy - so effectively that he knows to flick his head to the side to throw a frisbee to you, but toss his head up to throw a ball to you. Even in water they show their differences, the border collie likes to paddle but wont swim, whilst the lab will gladly swim as far out into the water and back as he can. It is interesting the differences between breeds, and the way that even two siblings from a single litter can exhibit such different traits from their parent breeds.

I think the important thing being missed in this conversation is the assumption that the dog handler couldn't prove that the dog had alerted him to a potential find - had the person complaining further up in the thread about this situation gone to court, the officer would've simply been asked to demonstrate his dog's tell to confirm it did in fact give him a tell. Those attacking the officer are ignoring this fact, and simply assuming the officer made it up but when the person complaining didn't even make a formal complaint, let alone go to court over it, means we only have a very biased half a story, with the conspiracy loons assuming without any evidence that the cop lied.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Xest]

On the contrary, it makes it harder.

If the case went to a formal complaint or court the officer would have to demonstrate that what the citizen saw was in fact the dog's tell by getting the dog to do it again. If he was by himself claiming he smelt weed then it's just his word against the person complaining.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

Then I wonder why any of them bother using the dog just so they can lie? Did they not take this into account?

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Xest]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe they weren't actually lying?

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps some humans don't always have the best of intentions and/or make mistakes?

Are you saying that none of them have ever lied about this? That's all I meant.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Xest]

I'm saying that in this case we have no proof either way who was wrong, just one person's word for it, so I'm not really going to say who I think was or wasn't right.

In contrast however, you have worked through the discussion assuming the officer in question is wrong, despite having no evidence to that effect.

My point is that your argument has been based on an inherent bias against the police, and your implication has been all the way through that the only possibility is that the police were in the wrong. I was merely pointing out that you simply do not know that was the case, so it is pointless to argue it.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[GmExtremacy]

In contrast however, you have worked through the discussion assuming the officer in question is wrong

I don't remember doing that. I said that it would be possible for a officer to lie. I meant that we shouldn't automatically trust them.

and your implication has been all the way through that the only possibility is that the police were in the wrong

I've never claimed that.

I was merely pointing out that you simply do not know that was the case

Never claimed that I did.

Re:"When they signal" is the important part

[Uberbah]

You apparently don't understand what falsifiable is.

A falsifiable test of drug dog tells would mean giving the defense hours of training footage showing how the dog in question "tells" when he smells drugs. Which could then be compared to the footage taken of the dog's actions in the defendants arrest.

The problem here isn't the dogs, it's the cops saying "oh, of course the dog smelled drugs on the suspect's car" whether or not that was actually the case.

Meh

[Anrego]

engineers and technical masterminds throughout the country would give their right arm for.

Not me.

I always questioned why the hell they hired him in the first place. I'm no fan of GeoHot .. but I recognize he has some serious skills. Why the hell would he want to crank out web apps for a living. He's an intelligent guy and all, but what the heck would he have done for them where his true skills would be of any real use (his actual code is pretty meh..).

As for the story itself.. my god.. who cares. It's what.. a misdemeanour offense? He probably pleads guilty, pays a fine and goes home. He might not even see a jail cell in between.

Re:Meh

[eratosthene]

Clearly you don't know very much about how many counties in Texas operate. Sure, in Travis county (where Austin is located), it would be a minor offense. Right next door in Williamson county? Any contraband, including just a pipe, will guarantee an overnight stay in jail. Paraphernalia is a minimum of $500 fine. An oz of weed could net you a year's probation. Anything over a gram of any other illegal substance will be a felony, with 4-10 years probation if you take the plea bargain. It's fucking sickening.

Re:Meh

[DerekLyons]

So? Don't take any illegal substances through Williamson County then - problem solved.

Not crossing the border!

[ehiris]

These checkpoints are not for those who cross the border. They are unconstitutional search and seizure checkpoints within the US. The pretense is that they are close to borders.

If the borders are so well protected, why do they need these checkpoints? There is no warrant.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[redbeardcanada]

I would assume that in additional to the constitutional arguement this could also be challenged on probable cause: once he has demonstrated he is a US citizen at a checkpoint to catch people in the country illegally, what was the reason that triggered suspicion of contraband?

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Myopic]

In my opinion:

1.) Anything action which is intended to result in evidence is a "search"
2.) Any search without a warrant is unconstitutional

Most people agree with #2 but not #1 -- certainly not the courts. I'm baffled how educated judges could look at a situation where a drug-sniffing dog is sniffing around cars looking for drugs, and not construe that as a search. No matter how you try to justify that, it's absurd.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the purpose of those check points is to catch illegals?

lol

Re:Not crossing the border!

[truthsearch]

Since when are random road checkpoints unconstitutional? They use them to check registrations and catch drunk drivers every day.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think the idea is that the area outside the car is public area and thus accessible to all persons.

So yes, they are searching, but they aren't searching you, just the area around you. Do they need a warrant to search public areas?

Re:Not crossing the border!

[b4dc0d3r]

Being a citizen on US soil is irrelevant if a border crossing is involved, because everyone is subject to search at the border.

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2727991&cid=39367407

Re:Not crossing the border!

[nickscalise]

If the borders are so well protected

Citation needed.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[elrous0]

What is this "Constitution" you speak of?

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people would not agree with #1 because they have no idea what you are trying to say.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU has been fighting the government on this issue. The US has decided that "border checks" can be set up anywhere within 100 miles of the border, and somehow this doesn't violate the 4th Amendment. This includes the oceans. The ACLU points out that 75% of the US population is now within this "border zone" and subject to random Border Patrol searches.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

They become unconstitutional when they begin searching your property without cause for suspicion. Details in the article are light. If they had reason to believe he was in possession of the drug through peculiar behavior or through even more obvious questions like say, the odor of marijuana wafting from his car, then nothing unconstitutional took place.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Parafilmus]

Being a citizen on US soil is irrelevant if a border crossing is involve

But in this case, no "border crossing" was involved. George was driving from El Paso to Austin, on an Interstate highway. They've setup "border crossings" on high-traffic roads inside the US, which is absolute bullshit.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

Always. Don't assume it's ok when authorities abuse their power, just because they've been doing it for decades.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[rahvin112]

The ACLU sued Customs over this and couldn't even get customs to admit how far from the border they could do these checkpoints. In theory they could do one of these things on I-70 in Kansas, according to Customs at least.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[snowgirl]

In my opinion:

1.) Anything action which is intended to result in evidence is a "search"
2.) Any search without a warrant is unconstitutional

Most people agree with #2 but not #1 -- certainly not the courts. I'm baffled how educated judges could look at a situation where a drug-sniffing dog is sniffing around cars looking for drugs, and not construe that as a search. No matter how you try to justify that, it's absurd.

Because it would be ludicrous for a judge to rule that the pound of coke just sitting on your passenger seat is unconstitutional to find if they don't have a specific warrant for it.

It's called the "plain sight" rule, and it makes perfect legal sense. If the cops just happen to see something, then they should be able to act upon it, the same as if they see you commit a crime, they don't have to wait for an arrest warrant, they can seize you right there.

The "plain scent" rule as I might call it, is just an extension of the plain sight rule: if it comes out of your car, then the police can gather that evidence without your consent. As it is no longer _IN_ your car, it's now outside of your car, and thus not yours anymore. (The same with garbage. Police don't need a warrant to collect evidence from your garbage, because you've thrown it out, and already rejected any claim to ownership to it.)

Re:Not crossing the border!

[berashith]

The cops would tell you that the search is occuring under probable cause. I agree with you that it is utter bullshit, but the fact is, a cop can claim probable cause if you are wearing boots or a hat (both provide room to hide something). They can lean on their training, say that they noticed something, and began asking questions. This then led to the discovery of contraband, which proves the initial probable cause justified. If you try to defend against this, then you are calling into question the training of ALL police officers, and you are not going very far with that in the court system. If you win, all evidence that leaned on the training of police that was ever admitted to court just became questionable.

I have passed through these Texas checkpoints mulitple times, all many years ago. The last time I was in a car by myself, with Georgia plates. I was in my early 20s, with dreadlocks. It was amazing that the 3 or 4 cars ahead of me got waved through and probably didnt get below 10 mph, while I got pointed at and motioned to pull to the side. The search was on at that point. They wanted to take everything in my car apart, and I asked for the dogs as I had a long way to go and wanted to spend as little time as possible in their company. I got pulled over 3 more times in the next 40 miles, and avoided more searches by asking each cop to call back to the border patrol.

there are videos on how to avoid trouble with cops during a conversation. Keep the doors locked, only open the window as little as possible. be polite, but dont do anything that gives a good view, or can be claimed as giving a good view. If done correctly then at least your lawyer can poke holes in the search.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[kd5zex]

Strangely enough, "DWI Checkpoints" were ruled unconstitutional by the Texas courts in 1994. The busy-bodies in Austin have introduced pro-checkpoint legislation in every session since, but it has yet to become law.

The latest rage in the DWI industry down here is the "No Refusal" gig. You can refuse the field sobriety tests and breathalyzer. Pre-No Refusal you would get thrown in jail and battle it out, you vs. the cop, in court at a later date. This caused embarrassment to the county DAs and hurt the law enforcement ROI as the police generally make many mistakes and a subset of juries are hostile towards government in general.

With No-Refusal in effect, if you refuse the traditional tests you will be asked to give consent to allow your blood to be drawn. If you do not give consent, a judge will issue a warrant for your blood and it will be taken from you.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court ran out of TP last month so they used it to wipe their arses.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[WastedMeat]

It is not a strictly passive search. They stop you for several minutes while a dog circles your car five or six times and four agents peer through all of your windows. Then the dog allegedly signals, and they assert that they now have probable cause to perform a search. I live in Tucson and drive through these damn things all the time. The first part happens to me about 15% of the time, though the dog has only signaled once. There has never been any pot in that truck in the four years that I have owned it.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[mark-t]

I would agree with #1, but would amend #2 to be "any search of another person's personal property or possessions without a warrant is unconstitutional.

There are, after all, many types of searches that don't infringe on anybody's privacy or property rights.

For example, searching for your misplaced keys... using Google... trying to find a particular address or place..

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Myopic]

I'd be more willing to say yes to that question, than to live under the status quo. The thing is, warrants are extremely easy and fast to get. The only thing they stop is police abuse; no legit warrants are ever refused. So a police officer who complains about needing a warrant, is complaining about being stopped from abusing his power.

What I'd most prefer is to use a normal human standard for such searches: if you can see contraband, that's one thing, but if you need an x-ray machine, then that's totally different. If you as a normal human can smell drugs, then that's one thing, but if you need the world's most advanced sniffing equipment (a dog), then that's another.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[EvilBudMan]

The reason that it is OK legally is that having a license to drive a car is not a right.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Myopic]

Oh, okay, sure of course. What I meant was searches by police. I don't want to have to get a warrant to help my mom use Google -- that would be crazy.

My basic point is to extend warrant coverage to things like

* receiving evident from third parties
* traffic-stop searches
* trolling using dogs or x-ray machines or heat-detectors or other superhuman technology
* criminal interviews

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where you're making your mistake is you're using the actual real definition of English words like "search", instead of the bullshit legalese definitions.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[snowgirl]

It is not a strictly passive search.

It doesn't have to be strictly passive, because IT HAS LEFT YOUR CAR.

The police can dumpster dive in your trash for all the evidence that they want without a warrant, because you've already disclaimed ownership and thus it is no longer your property, which means that you have no right to be secure that it will not be searched or seized.

Cops are generally allowed to be as vigorous in their plain-view search as they want to be, as long as they do not actually intrude into the space of your vehicle. (But they can only perform such a search for a "reasonable amount of time", otherwise they are detaining you, which they need reasonable cause to do. But their plain-view search is not limited by the 4th amendment search and seizure rights.)

But then all of this was to counter your point #2: "2.) Any search without a warrant is unconstitutional". No, there are constitutional searches that occur without a warrant. If a cop sees you stuff a kilo of coke into your backpack, then he has a specific and articulable fact to justify reasonable cause for a search.

So, stop being an idiot for two seconds, and realize that cops DO NOT HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE A WARRANT.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[ScentCone]

They are unconstitutional search and seizure checkpoints within the US

Kind of like the customs facility at, say, the Indianapolis International Airport? Not exactly sitting on the border, is it. I presume that you consider any searches they do there to be unconstitutional, right?

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

They use them to check registrations. They do not use them to search your vehicle. These checkpoints violate the 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[GmExtremacy]

It doesn't have to be strictly passive, because IT HAS LEFT YOUR CAR.

It may have left their car, but that doesn't mean they should be able to stop you and order the dog to search around so they can try to punish people for victimless crimes.

So, stop being an idiot for two seconds, and realize that cops DO NOT HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE A WARRANT.

That's the way things work right now, yes. Right now.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[WastedMeat]

I think you missed my point. If they detected some contraband in the air as you whizzed through the checkpoint and subsequently pulled you over and subjected you to increased scrutiny, I would not have much of an objection. They stop, inconvenience, hassle, and attempt intimidation indiscriminately, i.e.WITH NO REASONABLE CAUSE. I didn't say anything about a warrant.

Cops can't ask you for your papers on the street without cause, but you would probably argue that they can take a picture of your face with a smart phone and detain you "for a reasonable amount of time" while the picture is uploaded and checked against their databases to their heart's content, all without violating your rights.

I probably shouldn't have responded anyway. The name, the sig, the senseless insults, and the attitude all scream troll.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[snowgirl]

It doesn't have to be strictly passive, because IT HAS LEFT YOUR CAR.

It may have left their car, but that doesn't mean they should be able to stop you and order the dog to search around so they can try to punish people for victimless crimes.

They're not stopping you to let the dog search around your car, they're stopping you to ask you a few questions, etc. I've been through these border control points quite a number of times. You stop, they ask you some basic questions about your citizenship status.

And due to the finding in Illinois v. Caballes they can walk their dog around your car while doing so.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[snowgirl]

They stop, inconvenience, hassle, and attempt intimidation indiscriminately, i.e.WITH NO REASONABLE CAUSE.

No, they stop and ask you some questions about your citizenship status, and generally where are you coming from and where are you going.

They don't need probable cause to stop YOU because they're stopping everyone.

Cops can't ask you for your papers on the street without cause, but you would probably argue that they can take a picture of your face with a smart phone and detain you "for a reasonable amount of time" while the picture is uploaded and checked against their databases to their heart's content, all without violating your rights.

This has nothing to do with the initiation of a stop. Once a stop is lawful, and then for the entire reasonable duration of that stop, the cops can have a drug dog or look into your vehicle or whatever.

Namely, a cop can't single you out, and stop you on the road and then bring in a dog and search you. No, because the stop isn't lawful in the first place. However, if a cop stops you for speeding, and a K-9 unit just happens to pull up behind them (or was just tagging along to behind with, or was the actual unit that stopped you), then while they're proceeding at a reasonable pace to handle the original stop, the dog can take a walk around your car: that is legal, because THE ORIGINAL STOP WAS LAWFUL.

This isn't just some bullshit that I'm pulling out of a hat like most slashdog lay lawyers and people who like to pretend like they know what the law is... this is supported arguments based on ACTUAL SUPREME COURT PRESIDENT. (Illinois v. Caballes) If you don't like what I'm saying, then arrange a test case, and get it taken to the Supreme Court, until then, stop bitching, it's established law.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Sloppy]

I'm baffled how educated judges could look at a situation where a drug-sniffing dog is sniffing around cars looking for drugs, and not construe that as a search.

It might be that they're not so much concerned with whether or not it's a search, but rather, whether or not it's an "unreasonable" search (whatever the hell that means) and whether or not the search violated the security of persons, houses, papers, and effects.

I think most people think that observing something in plain site is permitted. (Extreme example: you're conversing with a cop in public space, and suddenly turn and shoot someone, and the cop testifies in court that he saw you shoot someone.) So: is it permitted to notice chemicals in the air, in a public space? Does the concentration matter? Did the observer do something (e.g. blow air at you, or open your window) to disperse the chemicals from your space into the public one? People can go either way on that stuff, without necessarily being absurd.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[GmExtremacy]

They're not stopping you to let the dog search around your car, they're stopping you to ask you a few questions, etc.

And I don't think that should happen in the first place.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[mcl630]

What does that have to do with Customs/Border Patrol?

Re:Not crossing the border!

[snowgirl]

And I don't think that should happen in the first place.

Well, regardless of if I agree with you or not, the current US legal system disagrees with you. Guess who wins.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[EvilBudMan]

Nothing except the procedure is the same. If you drive you can be stopped and asked for your papers and the cops can set up check points any place they like where a state allows that randomly, however I never saw anyone that was checked for walking through one.

I assume the Border Patrol is backing out further to catch people off guard but only in the good ole USA would the border be 100 miles in. That don't make sense as driving around after midnight is probably considered probable cause by the police in some counties in Texas.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that it is OK legally is that having a license to drive a car is not a right.

But ownership is a right and by extension, owning a car. They aren't challenging your license to drive a car, they're challenging your right to property and to be secure in your person.

Re:Not crossing the border!

[EvilBudMan]

Who owns the roads? You? You can also own a machine gun if you meet certain requirements and pay a tax. So when it comes to driving it's not even all your property. Like I said if you are walking they shouldn't be allowed to border check you 100 miles from any border but with driving the cops do just about anything they want depending upon state and local laws. If you don't have all of your paperwork right, you can't drive and I think they have a right to ask for that even though it is sometimes annoying.

Smuggling drugs and/or people from Mexico into the US is a huge problem. Walling the entire border off like Berlin would be kinda tough as we have massive borders with both Canada and Mexico.

Maybe the whole situation of legalization of certain drugs with controls and taxes just like cigarettes or even tighter would probably save lots of money and cut down on organized crime but every time someone brings that up, they say that's like saying it's OK to kids but that's a whole different subject.

All I'm saying IS that what they are doing is not against the law unless the Supreme Court reverses some decisions that they in the past which can and does happen but is not likely here.

Got App?

[Anonymous Coward]

I supose he has a Get out of Jail free App for that?

How is this constitutional?

[swb]

Even if you grant them mandatory illegal alien checkpoints, how is it possible for them to subject you to a search for something unrelated to border enforcement and prosecute you for it?

I know we're largely flushing the entire constitution down the toilet these days, but this seems really egregious.

I've been through the checks outside of Sierra Vista & Tombstone, AZ, and they were more or less roll to a stop, yes we are citizens, have a nice day. No dogs run around the car, no bullshit, although there were dogs at the checkpoints.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Anrego]

unrelated to border enforcement

I have to assume trafficking drugs across the border is part of that. Not saying that's what happened here (small amount one would assume for personal use) but I imagine the idea is to catch the guys with the fun packages hidden in their spare tire...

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new.

Any location within 100 miles of a US federal border is an officially Constitution-free zone. This neatly covers the homes of roughly 2/3 of all Americans.

You have no rights, so stop deluding yourself and do something about it.

From the ACLU:
Are You Living in a Constitution-free Zone?
Constitution-free Zone Fact Sheet
Constitution-free Zone Interactive Map

Re:How is this constitutional?

[swb]

The problem with that is they're not crossing a border with drugs, for all we know Geohotz grows his own in his back yard or gets it from someone else who does.

Furthermore, there's nothing that says his car even *crossed* a border.

If you broaden the criteria for non-consensual searches to "any item that may have crossed a border" you might as well include mandating searches of anyone, anywhere.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Sir_Sri]

Moving drugs across a border for personal use is still moving them across a border illegally.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[dd1968]

I've been through these checkpoints in New Mexico and Texas many times but I was never curious about their history until I read the "flushing the entire constitution down the toilet these days" comment. Got me to wondering how long the checkpoints have been around and who got them started. Best I can tell, they started in the early 90's (1993 is the earliest mention I can find).

Interesting GAO report on the Border Patrol from 2005, if anyone is interested:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05435.pdf

So the checkpoints are nothing new but certainly they were expanded and additionally empowered after 9/11 to (on paper anyway) act as a deterrent to terrorism. My only addition to the "flushing" comment is that it is nothing recent -- it started long ago. The Man just uses every excuse to flush more of our rights farther down the pipe. Galling.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Sez Zero]

I've been to this Texas border stop several times myself, and have never seen any dogs.

It must have been one of the changes as a result of SXSW.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've been to this Texas border stop several times myself, and have never seen any dogs.

It must have been one of the changes as a result of SXSW.

Because, as any cop in Texas will tell you, SXSW is a big illegal alien destination.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Parafilmus]

Moving drugs across a border for personal use is still moving them across a border illegally.

He didn't cross a border. He was driving from El Paso to Austin. The "checkpoint" is on a major expressway between two US cities.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you use that criteria, you almost certainly *are*, because of the large number of foreign-made components that go into the *construction* of a typical home. I'm not even talking about things like electronics, appliances, or furnishings. I'm talking about the building itself.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[hazah]

It has come to light that no border was crossed.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[elsurexiste]

These dogs are sniffing around a public area. If a dog starts being really playful with someone, police officers have a legitimate reason to think he's are committing a crime. We are talking about drugs, so we're talking about a felony. Since he's in a car, there's not as much privacy expectation as in a house. In that scenario, it's definitely OK to have warrantless searches. Whether or not he was near the US border is irrelevant at this point.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[berashith]

I am just glad that these zones dont propagate out from international airports. The ratio would approach 100% real fast.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[WastedMeat]

I have said something similar already, but it is not like the dog is sniffing your parked car while you are at a store. They stop you and detain you (though briefly) in order to let the dog sniff your car. They are hassling and inconveniencing you in order to acquire evidence against you. That is exactly what the fourth amendment is meant to prohibit.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[WastedMeat]

*in order to acquire evidence against you when there was no previous suspicion of wrongdoing.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're thinking with portals!

Re:How is this constitutional?

[L3370]

I roll thru two checkpoints between Phx and San Diego on a near weekly basis. Sometimes theres an extra 1 or 2 random checkpoints included between that route.

About 80% of my pass thru's have invloved a drug dog walking by the car.
They always ask citizenship, maybe some other questions like "Is this your car?" or "Could you state your birthdate?"
For me, I get selected for "Secondary screen" 1/3rd of the time. During the second screening they will ask you several questions to stress you or try to get you to trip up. They will then ask to see what is in your trunk. Other times they'll plain ask to search your entire vehicle. I've gotten this check so many times that I now say NO when they ask to search my car. You can say NO, just be prepared for them to haze you A LOT.

I'm of [mostly] Asian decent but 50% of people who first meet me say I look Mexican. This seems to factor into my high screening ratio. I feel this to be true because a family member of my girlfriend works BP. On the subject of profiling he has told me "Of course we don't profile! (WINK, WINK, Big Smile, Thumbs up)

The checkpoints, I assure you, are as deplorable as everyone here makes them out to be. The BP is a glorified social program to keep underachievers and ex military folks employed.

Re:How is this constitutional?

[dontmakemethink]

That's why 90% of us Canadians live near the US border, to watch. We're boring as hell ourselves, and there's nothing worth watching up north but the aurora borealis, and that channel almost never comes in well.

If he had only read Slashdot...

[theNAM666]

If he had read Slashdot, he'd have known about that checkpoint and avoided it!

Otherwise, the article is (welcome to new media) incredibly snide, especially with the comments about Sony "letting him off with a slap on the wrist" and the Facebook job. There's one site I wouldn't mind seeing DDoSed.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught. Should this surprise anyone?

It should if the people in question are driving from one part of the US to another part of the US. Why the FUCK do we have "border checkpoints" on roads that don't CROSS THE BORDER?

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Sponge Bath]

He should have waited until he got to SxSW to buy some weed. The US border between Texas and Mexico is coming to resemble that between North and South Korea.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[tiptone]

I would not be surprised to find out, because there are many of them, that this "border" checkpoint was nowhere near a border. Most people not aware of its location would not be expecting a border checkpoint since there is no border in the vicinity. Surprise!

Here's an idea....

[ip_freely_2000]

...don't drive on roads known to be used by drug smugglers with drugs in your car.

Re:Here's an idea....

[tylersoze]

Exactly, just like this road right here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_10

Re:Here's an idea....

[rahvin112]

Yea stay off those damn interstates, ya know because they are frequently used by drug smugglers.

No worries

[Cyphase]

He posted bail, but if he ends getting sent to the big house, he could always jailbreak himself out. He hasn't gotten into too much trouble for any of his other jailbreaks.

Re:No worries

[Anrego]

He hasn't gotten into too much trouble for any of his other jailbreaks.

Interestingly, prison escape isn't always illegal depending on where you live (assuming no other crimes are committed in the process).

Slashdot,

[Anonymous Coward]

is this a tabloid now?

Probably not actually a border checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people asking why someone would cross the border with marijuana, he probably didn't. CBP have been setting up temporary internal checkpoints for years. They stop your car (even though you aren't entering the country) on the highway and demand to search. Once people start learning there's a checkpoint, it goes away and moves somewhere else.

Even border checkpoints, though, wouldn't really surprise me. I just came back to the US (from Jamaica, even) and didn't get my stuff x-rayed or myself metal-detected. If that kept happening a few times... yeah, I'd probably not worry about carrying contraband anymore.

Shop local!

[Matt_Bennett]

Austin is proud of its local businesses- 'Keep Austin Weird" is an advertising slogan of the Austin Business Alliance- Surely, he could have supported one of our local entrepreneurs and looked for a local source.

Re:Shop local!

[Matt_Bennett]

: I meant Austin Independent Business Alliance.

Re:Shop local!

[swb]

My guess is with SXSW going on, local prices are probably inflated and local supplies are probably depleted.

The flip side of that is, SXSW is going on and there's a lot of like-minded people in the same place at the same time.

Re:Shop local!

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought was that he was a bastard for buying cartel pot; but if he didn't actually cross a border then who know where it came from. If you must buy weed, buy American or maybe Canadian if you know them. Fuck the cartels.

Re:Shop local!

[maccodemonkey]

I was about to accuse Austin of lifting that from Portland, but then Wikipedia informed me that we here in Portland actually stole that slogan from Austin. Gasp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Portland_Weird

Re:Shop local!

[Matt_Bennett]

I wouldn't have been surprised if Austin stole it. Many things come to Austin from other places and stay- smog, traffic, Californians...

I'm shocked, shocked!

[Black Parrot]

Willie Nelson smokes pot? I thought he was a clean-cut, all-American C&W singer.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked!

[Fujisawa Sensei]

He can't be clean cut, he didn't have the little fish on the back of the truck.

In Texas that's known as the get out of jail free card.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was to warn of others that they were piss poor drivers.

A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

Or possibly another one similar in design. The cops claimed the dog signaled the presence of drugs. The pastor knew that was a lie, and refused to exit the video, so the cops smashed-in the windows, drug the pastor out, and started beating him (the video is on youtube).

Later in court it was discovered via testimony that the dog had NOT signaled and the cops were lying. They were/are just using the dogs to perform searches without cause. So the charges were dropped, and now the pastor is suing the police for damages to his car and person.

According to several SCOTUS rulings, these checkpoints are legal but ONLY for the purpose of idenitfying illegals, or escaped criminals, but nothing else. And any contraband must be thrown out, since a judge-issued warrant was not obtained, and the search is unconstitutional. The cops are ignoring the justices rulings and arresting people anyway.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[wisnoskij]

It does not matter if there is no proof if the cops can pressure you into confessing.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Remus Shepherd]

That doesn't sound like a tactic worth using. Surely there is a third option better than either a minor drug charge or a vicious beating.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Myopic]

Wow that's crazy. (Link?)

So how many years are the cops spending in jail for violation of the public trust, battery, conspiracy to commit battery, vandalism, conspiracy to commit vandalism, and violation of civil rights? Also, if they physically moved the pastor more than ten feet (very likely), then I'd expect them to be prosecuted for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, too.

Oh, what, zero years? You don't say...

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

You kidding? Getting beat-up by the government is like winning a multi-million dollar lottery (though it takes several years of court cases to get your prize).

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[darkmeridian]

My dad was pulled over the other day for talking on his cellphone. I was in the passenger seat and no one was using a cellphone, so it was clearly a bullshit stop. The cop looked the car over to find a reason to justify his search; he checked the registration sticker, the inspection sticker, the headlights, everything. My dad didn't have his driver's license at the time because the DMV lost it in the mail so the cop gave him a hard time about it. The cop then asked me for ID, so I handed him my business card. I'm a lawyer. The cop walked back to his car, came back a minute later, and said that we were free to go.

Seriously, folks, cops can do really shady things. Don't get me wrong, I love cops because they've saved my ass a few times, but there are some rogue ones who really should be slapped down. I mean, if cops can lie to get you into tickets, then what the fuck incentive do we have for doing the right thing (aside from doing the right thing)?

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[adrenaline_junky]

If that is all true, then Mr. Hotz should not only be able to successfully fight these charges, but he can (and should) go after the police officers individually under "false arrest under color of law" statutes.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofc they are ignoring the ruling. It's money in their pockets.

The truth is people don't know their rights, the dogs tag on your car, they ask you to step out, you get out and lock your doors.

They tell you "we have probable cause" blah blah, you remind them that the outside of your car is in fact public property and since anyone has access to it, it doesn't constitute probable cause and they do not have permission under any circumstance to search your vehicle.

Chances are they'll search your car and arrest you anyways, but it makes your court case a lot stronger.

Now chances are he was high and had it in his pocket and they said hmm whats this when conducting a mandatory search of his person for officer safety. That's what happens 9/10 times with us. *insert trollface here*

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love it...police state USA ftw!!

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[n1ywb]

According to OTHER SCOTUS rulings the cops can legally detain you for a LONG time (hours) and then walk a drug dog AROUND you car and if the dog signals (or if the cop SAYS the dog signals) they have probable cause to search. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes Also the definition of a "reasonable amount of time" to detain somebody while waiting for a drug dog is very ambiguous; courts have found hours long detentions while waiting for drug dogs are legal.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive. Seems you may have finally learned how drug-sniffing dogs work, and that it isn't by barking that they signal contraband. Good to know that you actually wisened up since last time.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

You left-out an important detail: The driver had already committed a crime (speeding). The checkpoints along the border state highways are stopping-and-seizing drivers who are not guilty, and therefore it's an illegal warrantless search.

  It's just the same as if a cop went door-to-door and started sniffing around your home's doors. It's harassment and the reason the 4th amendment was created in the first place.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[StoutFiles]

If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he let them search the car? Maybe he didn't want to, but I'm sure he didn't want a beating either. Rule #1: Don't do anything to antagonize a policeman.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

That pastor also prays for Obama's death. Maybe Obama sicced his dogs on him. XD

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The cop then asked me for ID, so I handed him my business card. I'm a lawyer. The cop walked back to his car, came back a minute later, and said that we were free to go.

Moral of the story ... print up fake business cards that make you look like a lawyer.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how you know we continue to live in a somewhat free country. God help us when this changes.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[snowgirl]

And any contraband must be thrown out, since a judge-issued warrant was not obtained, and the search is unconstitutional.

NO! Cops can act on anything that is in plain-view, this doesn't stop just because it's a border checkpoint.

Once it leaves your car, it is no longer 4th amendment protected, whether it be photons, or chemicals wafting in the wind.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

"print up fake business cards that make you look like a lawyer."

Because the cops have no way of checking that...

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

And get arrested for criminal impersonation? From http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s28index/s2806008000.html

A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation if he or she [a]ssumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent ... to deceive or harm another... Criminal impersonation is a Class II misdemeanor if no credit, money, goods, services, or other thing of value was gained or was attempted to be gained.

Ellipsis indicate elision of text that's not applicable to a traffic stop like the GP describes.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Brian Feldman]

and that somehow makes it a bad idea?

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[antdude]

Did the cop let you guys go because you're a lawyer? :)

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[EvilBudMan]

Since you are a lawyer, you should know never talk to cops. If they say can I search your car, say do I have a choice and if so the answer is no.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Why you were modded as funny is beyond me.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[gknoy]

What if you merely named your business, "The Law Offices of Murphy, Schneier, and Bohr", but did not actually claim that YOU were a lawyer? :-)

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

And get arrested for impersonating an officer of the court. It only takes a minute on the radio to verify the card.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

If you have nothing to hide, why don't you just let the WW2-era soldiers into your home and search, like a good American of japanese descent? (And then be forced into a concentration camp.) BETTER ANSWER: Obey the law which clearly states no warrant; no search. We have no Bill of Rights (laws) if we don't stand-up for them when they are being trampled.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Fujisawa Sensei]

So you give them your lawyer's business card and just don't say anything.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

Not the correct answer. The conversation should go like this. And by the way "acting suspicious" is not probable cause, so the cop still can't enter. And remember to exercise your Miranda rights; keep quiet. (Hand them the drivers license & insurance card; that's all the information they can ask of you.)

COP: "May I search your car?"

Do you have a warrant?

"No."

Then no you may not search my car.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[cpu6502]

A trunk is not plain view. If the cops did not have a warrant of cause (in this case they did not), then any contraband is inadmissable as evidence. BTW the pastor wa not carrying drugs. The dog did not smell anything nor did it signal. The cops lied.

COP: "May I search your car?"

Do you have a warrant?

"No."

Then no you may not search my car.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[snowgirl]

I'm not arguing that the police were in the right in this case, and you're right that the trunk is not (normally) plain-view. I objected to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE in your argument: that all searches without a warrant are unconstitutional.

Also: don't ask if they have a warrant. If they have a warrant, then they won't ask your permission, and if they have probable cause, then they won't ask your permission either. What you say is "I don't consent to any searches." Because guess what? Just because they have a piece of paper saying that they have a warrant does not mean that they have a lawful warrant.

But if cops show up with an unlawful warrant, and ask to search your house, and you say "well, you do have a warrant... so ok." Guess what happens to the unlawful warrant? It's now irrelevant because you just gave them consent to search anyways. So, even though your lawyer could argue that the warrant was unlawfully obtained and thus invalid, and all evidence should be thrown out, the prosecution is going to ask you, "when they showed up, they asked to search your place, you said 'do you have a warrant' and they said 'yes' (N.B. the police are allowed to lie), to which you then consented to a search. Is this a true statement of fact?" When you answer yes, because you're not allowed to lie, they then point out that the search was consensual, and so the defect of the warrant is irrelevant.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[rhook]

SCOTUS has ruled that police cannot detain you for more than a reasonable amount of time. In fact here is a quote straight from the Wikipedia article you posted.

"the stop becomes unreasonable if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably necessary to issue the warning."

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[rhook]

I forgot to add this part.

"And if a drug-sniffing dog is used during this unreasonable extension, the use of the dog violates the Fourth Amendment."

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And get arrested for impersonating an officer of the court.

There is no such crime.
Sounds like you have mashed-up "impersonating an officer of the law" (i.e. a cop) and "practicing law without a license" (i.e. pretending to be a lawyer in court).

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Read the entire text, his elipses didn't just elide what's not applicable, they also elided what makes the entire statute not applicable.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[EvilBudMan]

The reason I said "do I have a choice" is that when you say "do you have a warrant" many times they will and possibly can go get one but what do I know I'm not a lawyer for sure but even if you are not guilty, don't talk to them. Cops and Lawyers both have told me that is how they jail 90% of people because they can't shut up.

Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in texass.

He in Texass he should have had a nobama bumpersticker with the fish to tell the pigs whose side he's on.

This Was Done To Make A Point

[Anonymous Coward]

He did this to show that intelligence and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

Checkpoint != Border

[TheNinjaroach]

You must not be an American. In this corner of the world, we setup "border checkpoints" up to 100 miles away from the nearest border.

Taking marijuana away George Hotz is only one of many important steps our government makes every day in order to keep us free.

Re:Checkpoint != Border

[elrous0]

Think of it like that scene in Airplane 2 where heavily-armed terrorists are walking right through the security checkpoint while the TSA holds an old lady at gunpoint to search her purse.

Re:Checkpoint != Border

[willpb]

There's potential for abuse here. My friend was helping his ex-wife move back to Texas, they both drove separate cars. Once they got there her druggee friend helped unload his trunk. On his way back, he was stopped and searched at one of these inland checkpoints because a drug dog smelled something. Luckily they didn't find anything big enough to incriminate him with. Imagine if she really wanted to get him in trouble. Instead of causing him an inconvenience she could have put him in jail for a while.

Re:Checkpoint != Border

[Isaac-1]

That would be old style airport private security guards, the movie was made MANY years before the TSA was created.

Re:Checkpoint != Border

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplane 2 pre-dates the TSA by a fair amount.

And the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Who let the dogs out?

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[rwade]

Okay -- I wasn't aware that this was one of those internal "border patrol" checkpoints. Should have RTFA.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

people do it all the time and get caught.... however it is not suprising that an amature such as geohotz got caught with a dime bag... 30-40% of this countries drug supply comes accross that boarder....

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never understood that myself. A few years ago, I drove through one of those internal checkpoints in northern New York. I'm Canadian, live in Canada, and have a Quebec-registered car. They didn't even want to talk to me. Though my evidence is anecdotal, It seems that these checkpoints have nothing to do with border security.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[VortexCortex]

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught. Should this surprise anyone?

It should if the people in question are driving from one part of the US to another part of the US. Why the FUCK do we have "border checkpoints" on roads that don't CROSS THE BORDER?

Because 2/3rds of the populous lives within 100 miles of any border or airport, which is considered the "Constitution Free Zone".

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[meerling]

Yeah, but the way I hear it, they don't go through the checkpoints like good little citizens.

It's amazing at what you can get away with if you have a GPS mapper, 4 wheel drive, and a spotter with a cell phone driving a few miles ahead of you.

Misread TFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I misread TFS as saying "DHS then turns evidence and suspects over to the local sheriff, Willie Nelson", and was confused by the arrest. I had to ask myself if, for Willie, screwing up the puff-puff-pass rotation was a felony or a misdemeanor.

Re:Misread TFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Willie Nelson wants to round up all of them bad boys, hang 'em high in the street, so I'm guessing felony.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[mcmonkey]

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught. Should this surprise anyone?

It should if the people in question are driving from one part of the US to another part of the US. Why the FUCK do we have "border checkpoints" on roads that don't CROSS THE BORDER?

That is so mind-numbingly idiotic, thugish, and clearly unconstitutional I hadn't considered it as possibility. I was wondering why he was going to Austin by way of Mexico.

There is also the possibility there was nothing illegal in the vehicle, and the brown shirts on duty at the time just had a quota to fill.

But if he was carrying, dude it's Austin. You can pick up when you get there. Or, you know, just not toke up for a couple days. (Not anti-drug, but anti-PMITA prison.)

Check news sources

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else notice that the article in question makes reference to Hotz being responsible for hacking PSN? I thought he was just the guy who rooted the PS3.

I can understand Sony dropping a case for jailbreaking (potentially more money than it's worth) but if he truly was the chap who grabbed the PSN user data (and CC data too, iirc) I somehow doubt Sony would be quite so lenient.

Catch n1ywb's Zero-Wing Reference?

[interval1066]

After Border Patrol launches all dogs and get signal, I guess their main screen turn on. Then C.A.T.S. appears and throws you in jail.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Mister Whirly]

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught.

Exactly. It is common knowledge that border checkpoints stop 100% of illegal contraband trying to get into the country. That is why there are no illegal drugs inside the US borders, right?

Terrible evil!

[bahstid]

So geohot is in the top 10 programmers/hackers in the world...

or the top 100..
or top 1000
or top 10000
...
or top 10 000 000
or whatever.

lets forget the the multitude of "legitiate" uses of marihuana for a bit, and just wonder what exact detrimental effect the narcotic use thereof is supposedly having on its users that the government and its agents should be protecting us from.

I know the the english word "assasin" is supposedly derived from the arabic for hashish, but I seriously want to know where the harm is when its not interfering with high-level functionality.

Re:Terrible evil!

[forkfail]

Note on the whole hashasin thing: the reward for doing a killing was that they got to get high for the rest of their lives. The drug itself wasn't used in anyway during the actual killing.

These aren't new.

[rjejr]

I got stopped and searched at one of these checkpoints in 1988, 24 years ago. We were nowhere near the border, about 30 miles away, somewhere in Arizona. There weren't any dogs, just some guys in uniforms and mirrored Cool Hand Luke sunglasses. We had to get out of the car while they searched it. So, this isn't new, and it isn't near the border. And they don't stop doing it b/c it works. Probably shouldn't call it "border" patrol though, more like "rape your rights' patrol.

Welcome to the 4th amendment free zone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the 4th amendment free zone. The US government has taken for itself the right to stop anyone for any reason within 100 miles of the border. You can read about it over at ACLU.com. It angers me every time I drive past that checkpoint. In the past several years in addition to the stop and ask ("Is everyone in the car a US citizen?") they have added a massive array of lights, cameras, and sensors - a veritable battery along both sides of the road, containing I'm not sure what all, but probably infrared and maybe even x-ray - to record every aspect of every car and truck that drives down that section of I-10 in both directions. In this day and age, it is only a matter of time before they log every detail, and store it perpetually. How this is possible constitutional I can only wonder. But I do think more people need to join groups like the ACLU to fight back the overreach in court.

Re:Welcome to the 4th amendment free zone.

[hazah]

Something tells me that after a while of bewilderment something will eventually blow up. Seems to be the nature of things if one looks to recent history. All it takes is someone angry enough with nothing else to lose. A situation, I imagine, easily discovered by pure submission to the idiocy currently forced.

One man's trouble is another's protest

[msobkow]

Everyone knows about that patrol after Willie and Snoop were tagged by it. Only a complete and utter fool would try to get through that checkpoint with cannabis, medical or otherwise.

So seeing as George seems to be a pretty bright guy, I have to presume he did it as a protest to highlight the insanity of the "drug" war (which is 90% a war on cannabis, against the wishes of the people.)

Welcome to the battle, George. Good luck in court.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[kc8jhs]

The real news about this and the summary fails to explain is that they can't search your car, vehicle or tour bus without a warrant. What they are doing in these cases is bringing a judge or official with the sheriffs department that can issue warrants on site, and they grant every warrant that the inspectors request. See this previous article about no-refusal DUI checkpoints for an example of how they are skirting due process: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/31/2357217/no-refusal-dui-checkpoints-coming-to-florida

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[forkfail]

Careful - you're not supposed to point that out when not in a Free Speech Zone...

Want to know how drug dogs work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the movie "Never Get Busted Again" where a female K9 handler gets a police dog to "hit" on her shoe and the ground by making a signal the dog knows. Perfect for the police state and the dog is doing what he is trained to do. Next time, carry a dog in your car and it's pretty hard to go to trial with the police dog was attracted to your dog.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[chemicaldave]

The reasoning is probably that large shipments are being smuggled in nearby, avoiding the actual border checkpoint, and then shipped on the interstate. By checking for shipments further along the highway they're probably more likely to catch stuff. As a side effect, they'll find lots of misdemeanors because of the dogs.
Just my two cents.

Effective at what?

[deanklear]

This is a guy not under the influence being hassled at a checkpoint for the equivalent of carrying a small bottle of alcohol.

1) How many people lost time/money due to the checkpoint?
2) How many lives were saved due to the confiscation of a small amount of marijuana?
3) How much did tax payers spend for all of this nonsense?

It's effective at promoting stigma for the recreational use of a drug that is literally less dangerous than ibuprofen. It's effective at wasting taxpayer dollars for no benefit to society at large. It's effective at being ineffective, wasteful, and pointless.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Effective at enforcing Texas' and federal laws on possession. Enforcement is their prerogative. If you want the laws changed, move to Texas and vote for it.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, I can buy a used or rental car that the last person hid/dropped something in and it will be taken apart on the side of the road. This is why I avoid buying a used car.

Many years ago, i bought a used car and when cleaning it out found a small plastic bag in it with a white powder. I think it was just a drying agent but it still scared the hell out of me.

I can tell if there is a human in the trunk, but if someone dropped tiny baggie between the front seats and could not find it....

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a guy not under the influence being hassled at a checkpoint for the equivalent of carrying a small bottle of alcohol. 1) How many people lost time/money due to the checkpoint? 2) How many lives were saved due to the confiscation of a small amount of marijuana? 3) How much did tax payers spend for all of this nonsense? It's effective at promoting stigma for the recreational use of a drug that is literally less dangerous than ibuprofen. It's effective at wasting taxpayer dollars for no benefit to society at large. It's effective at being ineffective, wasteful, and pointless.

How many billions of dollars will Big Pharma make this month by simply keeping marijuana illegal?

And now you have your answer as to exactly why these "ineffective, wasteful, and pointless" laws, aren't...at least according to those who profit the most from them.

Like everything else, it all comes down to greed.

Re:Effective at what?

[DarkOx]

First off most state laws around marijuana are less strict then Federal. There is absolutely NO SOUND REASON to have Federal law against marijuana. If the State of Texas wants to enforce some crazy statute the people of Texas should bear the cost of doing so, my federal tax dollars should not be WASTED by DHS keeping a little pop off the streets in Cowboy country.

Re:Effective at what?

[rrohbeck]

4) How much does the prison-industrial system make per arrest? What's the total revenue it pulls from the the war on drugs?
4a) How much of that is kicked back to the cops?

Re:Effective at what?

[Creepy]

Well yeah - exactly what I've been saying for years. The only way to win a war is to KILL, so a war on drugs should put all users and dealers to death. Draconian, yes, but that is how you win wars. I personally favor decriminalization and free treatment, but I don't run the country, idiots do.

Re:Effective at what?

[g0bshiTe]

I'd mod you up for this had I the points. I fully agree, if it were punishable by death no one would do it. Look at Asian countries for examples, read China etc.
On the other hand we are allowed to drink ourselves into stupors until we need liver replacements while no one cares. That seem right to you?

Re:Effective at what?

[Whorhay]

The Cops don't usually get a kickback from the prison system. But they often do get to keep all of the confiscated property that they can get their hands on. Which is one of the reasons you'll see truckers get hassled more frequently, a trucker with a load of legal stuff and a couple ounces of drugs can net them hundreds of thousands of dollars in confiscated property.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree, if it were punishable by death no one would do it.

If it were punishable by death, I think there'd be a high chance that people would riot over something that extreme.

And people would still do it.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the pro-legalization folks are honest and genuinely interested in civics and debates.
The drug war folks are simply interested in imprisoning the colored people... and since THEIR argument fits on a bumper sticker (yours does not), they win.

Re:Effective at what?

[arkane1234]

There's absolutely no sound reason to not have federal laws against marijuana. It's a drug, plain and simple.
If you don't like it, try and figure out a reason why it's not a drug.

Re:Effective at what?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm pretty sure that it's generally considered unconstitutional to enforce laws by randomly searching people - you need probable cause. That's precisely why those "border checkpoints" are created - since they're "border", they are not subject to the 4th Amendment. per SCOTUS, but since they are in effect deep into U.S. territory, they can do searches on any American passing through, not just people crossing the border.

In other words, this is just an ugly hack to dodge the 4th Amendment, and arranged by the Feds. It has nothing to do with Texas laws.

Re:Effective at what?

[idontgno]

If you don't like it, try and figure out a reason why it's not a drug.

Yeah, why can't it be like alcohol, which is clearly not a drug. No. Wait.

Re:Effective at what?

[Rinikusu]

Singapore has a death penalty installed for drugs and they still have drug abuse issues. So no, even installing a draconian death penalty won't stop people from doing drugs.

Re:Effective at what?

[Peristaltic]

From their point of view, there are very sound reasons. State and federal agencies profit in the "war on drugs"- They don't care if it's a real threat like meth labs and the lovely people working them, or something as relatively harmless as marijuana.

Prohibition produces profits.

Profits for the drug lords, profits for the agencies and careers for the drug agents fighting them, profits for the legal system, profits for the private prisons, larger budgets for the state and federal prisons. They're not -about- to change the laws and let that kind of money and job security slip away. I'm sure that there are some good DEA agents, but think of how many DEA zealots would have to find jobs at County Sheriff's departments if they passed reasonable drug laws. Hell, the drug lords don't want reasonable drug laws, either- they'd have competition and profits would drop.

History keeps on repeating itself, which doesn't speak well of the evolution of human intelligence and ethics- Think back to the kinds of people that made money and built careers (on both sides) during alcohol prohibition. Unethical turds jump on the bandwagon that stupid, short-sighted people build (the "I don't think it's right but I'm too stupid to suggest a real solution" crowd) .

As a sidebar, I wonder if JFK would have been president if Joe Kennedy hadn't fueled John's campaigns with profits made from selling illegal liquor.

Re:Effective at what?

[Shotgun]

You call them idiots.
The rest of us call them rich and powerful 8*(

Re:Effective at what?

[Peristaltic]

There's absolutely no sound reason to not have federal laws against marijuana. It's a drug, plain and simple. If you don't like it, try and figure out a reason why it's not a drug.

Marijuana is absolutely a drug. So?

I don't smoke marijuana, so I don't have much skin in the game, but tell me: Why does the fact that marijuana is a drug make it bad?

I work in biomedical informatics, building physician order entry systems. One of the reasons (other than government-mandated "meaningful use") that these systems are being put into place is that prescription drug-related serious injuries and deaths, in US hospitals alone, run about 70,000+ / year. There's no telling what that number is outside the clinical environment, for prescription drugs used properly under doctors' control, but it's probably similar.

Take a moment and tell me what is so bad about marijuana use. Tell me why it's worse than using alcohol or nicotine. I have no citations, but I believe that injuries and deaths just from the use of these two drugs is far greater that those occurring from marijuana use- Wouldn't it make as much sense then to arrest and imprison people for possession of these drugs? There's a very good argument, based on your statement above, that "there's absolutely no sound reason to not have federal laws against alcohol and nicotine" as well. Other than the brutality associated with some of the production and delivery of the drug, (which is largely driven by its prohibition), compare the morbidity / mortality associated with marijuana use and alcohol, nicotine, or even doing something as mind-blowingly stupid as texting while operating a vehicle on the freeway.

"It's a drug, plain and simple." is the dumbest, most poorly thought out argument against using marijuana that I've ever heard. You might as well say "Just Because".

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes more sense when you realize arkane1234's sig: "This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!" refers to the space between his ears.

Re:Effective at what?

[benjamindees]

The Cops don't usually get a kickback from the prison system.

Not directly, but their salaries are paid by investment in municipal bonds, courtesy of the same large financial institutions that invest in the private prisons. It's all connected at a high enough level for everyone involved to claim plausible deniability.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a moment and tell me what is so bad about marijuana use. Tell me why it's worse than using alcohol or nicotine. I have no citations, but I believe that injuries and deaths just from the use of these two drugs is far greater that those occurring from marijuana use- Wouldn't it make as much sense then to arrest and imprison people for possession of these drugs?

I'm pretty sure nicotine is on par with marijuana (or rather, THC) which is to say essentially none. Tobacco's bad, especially smoked, but that's due to TSNAs, products of pyrolysis, and CO, not nicotine.

A decade ago, this would be a mere nitpick over word choice, but these days recreational nicotine use without tobacco is increasingly popular, since the invention of the e-cigarette/PV, so it's now a practical matter.

Re:Effective at what?

[mcgrew]

It's effective at promoting stigma for the recreational use of a drug that is literally less dangerous than ibuprofen.

Not just ibuprophin, but aspirin, Naproxin (Alieve) and acetaminophen (tylenol). Acetaminophen overdose or use with other drugs (alcohol being one) can cause fatal liver damage. Someone I know now has no belly button because of Naproxin; the stuff ate a hole in her gut. The surgery left a scar from her chest to where her belly button used to be and she was in the hospital for a month.

Re:Effective at what?

[mcgrew]

Not decriminalization; most of society's problems with illegal drugs is the illegal trade itself. Making posession legal won't help a bit (although for addictive drugs free treatment would help, but marijuana isn't one of them).

Legalize them, regulate them, tax them. Put the damned Mexican mafia out of business. Buy your crack and heroin in the drug store, buy your weed at a smoke shop or liquor store.

And the country isn't run by idiots, it's run by greedy selfish sociopaths. Never assume idiocy what greedy self-interest explains.

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

War on Povery. Sounds good to me!

Re:Effective at what?

[Anonymous Coward]

nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

Re:Effective at what?

[Peristaltic]

There are only two potential problems with nicotine use that I can cite: 1) There is some evidence that over-expression of the FOXM1 gene is linked to a higher risk of mouth cancer when owners of the over-expressed gene chew nicotine gum. 2) Nicotine is a powerful vasoconstrictor, which can lead to various problems, especially as one ages. I've never smoked, but chew nicotine gum- Now that I'm getting older, there have been a couple times that I've noticed minor problems with #2.

Marijuana should be legal.

[Beelzebud]

Go arrest some real criminals, and stop wasting time, money, and lives.

Re:Marijuana should be legal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arresting real criminals is a lot of work, dangerous and not nearly as lucrative.

Re:Marijuana should be legal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. But, it is not legal. Therefore, they are real criminals.

Perhaps if you didn't toke for a few days, you would think more clearly. Assuming that too much damage hasn't already been done.

FTFA: Another black spot?

[sl4shd0rk]

"He quit a job that engineers and technical masterminds throughout the country would give their right arm for. So now, there's another black spot on his record,..."

Most hackers I know don't get their jollies sitting in a cube writing TPS reports. Sure, it pays well but I don't think Facebook would have much need for someone who's used to staring at de-compiled code or messing with JTAG cables . Don't diss him for not following the crowd; the most interesting hackers never do.

Thank god

[Brian Feldman]

Thank god this dangerous criminal is off the streets! Who knows what shenanighans he might have been up to -- jazz dancing, making moves on white women, going on violent murder sprees!

Re:Thank god

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god this dangerous criminal is off the streets! Who knows what shenanighans he might have been up to -- jazz dancing, making moves on white women, going on violent murder sprees!

... writing poorly commented code...

Except Austin

[Marrow]

Austin is pretty cool. Very good bookstore, WholeFoods, and restaurants.

Re:Except Austin

[raind]

Okay not all of Texas, just Bush's part...

Re:Except Austin

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who think Austin is cool are people who have no idea
what cool is.

Texas is a fascist shithole.

And yes, I've been there. But there is nothing on this earth that can or will
compel me to ever go back. Certainly not some festival.

If the organizers of SXSW were smart they would relocate their show to
a place which is less interested in hassling people who are on the way to
the event. Which could be pretty much any other state in the US.

I see what you did there

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trying to pretend he's a big celebrity and this was all a big operation just to nail him.

This happens to hundreds of people every day. Dumb shit.

in case you weren't aware

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a freaking drug war going on between the US and mexico and a very large part of it occurs on the Texas-Mexico border.

Re:in case you weren't aware

[hazah]

WTF is a "drug war" mate?

Re:in case you weren't aware

[Shotgun]

That is where the government decides that a weed that plagues the Potomac river (which runs through our Capital), and is useful for making rope is declared illegal. At that point, newspapermen get to write fictional, but sensational stories to sell newspapers, and policemen get to assault blacks, mexicans, poor southerners, and anyone else they decide they don't like. In return, the federal government collects vast sums of money and uses it to buy military type gear for the yahoo commando wannabees...er...I mean the "local police task force". The privatized jails are then filled to overflowing with "criminals", who were caught relaxing with a joint. Money flows all around, the sheeple feel "safe", and the politicians take credit for saving the world from itself.

You should really get your countrymen to give it a go. It's great fun really.

avoid texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Austin may be 'cool' and 'weird' but the city doesnt have the infrastructure to support these events, out of towners are targeted for arrest, and you're still in the !#%% capital of texas (the least 'weird' state in the union).

Seriously.

Re:avoid texas

[Megane]

Then I guess you've never been to Oklahoma. They don't even have the weird of Austin. Ever hear of the term "buckle of the bible belt"?

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't try to carry drugs across the border and expect not to get caught. The Mexican border crossings are very heavily manned, and DHS is not just looking for illegal aliens but drugs specifically.

Re:Really?

[hazah]

Ironically, crossing the border is the very thing that DID NOT HAPPEN.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have RTFA.

Why? This is /.?

CheckpointUSA

[Anonymous Coward]

The following Youtube channel follows a guy as he moves through multiple suspicion-less checkpoints within US borders. Worth watching as he video tapes everything and asserts his rights.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA

Scold them

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the border patrol to get their asses over to the border. Tell them to Cease and desist. Explain that the dog signaled because you farted.

That Explains It

[twmcneil]

Last week, I saw a car marked "Border Patrol" in the I-75 median half way between Tampa and Ocala. I could not for the life of me figure out what border the officer could possibly be patrolling. Obviously it was the border of insanity and he was on the other side.

Re:That Explains It

[bruce_the_loon]

Halfway between Tampa and Ocala would put him 20-odd miles from the border with the Gulf?

Re:That Explains It

[TheNastyInThePasty]

There is a border patrol car next to the intersection of I-10 and I-75 on a regular basis, too.

Re:That Explains It

[swb]

So he's on the lookout for boat people portaging across the peninsula?

Re:That Explains It

[arkane1234]

Hint: cars are not used to patrol. Cars are transportation for border patrol.

Re:That Explains It

[bruce_the_loon]

Precisely.

HA HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid doper

Re:HA HA!

[hazah]

Stupid, enabling, you. You've just wasted everyone's tax dollars. (I assume you don't actually pay them or too stupid to understand the consequences).

Oblig. Fam. Guy

[CanHasDIY]

POT! Small amount of Pot!

You're going down, dirtbag!

Re:Oblig. Fam. Guy

[x0d]

I`m sorry, but that show sucks.

Re:Oblig. Fam. Guy

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not, and yes it does. Unfortunately, no appropriate Futurama references came to mind.

Re:Oblig. Fam. Guy

[arkane1234]

Yes, you are sorry.

Re:Oblig. Fam. Guy

[Ellis D. Tripp]

But everything's better with a bag of weed!

http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/bag-of-weed.html

Damn

[pak9rabid]

geohot's cooler than I thought he was.

Guilty before proven innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is that "check points" should rather be called "oppression points" because the underlying principle is guilty before proven innocent -- one of the core prerequsites of oppression.

Just because it's Texas....

[CrixDev]

doesn't mean it HAS to do with the border. SXSW is THE largest indie art & music festival in the US, dare I say the world. What do you get with that? A crazy insane group of hipsters and a plethora of drugs everywhere. I live in Tennessee. Since Bonnaroo was 'on the farm', the entire law enforcement body of this state has it's targets set every year so they can get a piece of the revenue too. DUIs, arrests, drug confiscations, you name it. I don't know how it is in Austin, but you can bet that all Texas law enforcement in every direction but south have the same idea.

Maybe Geohot should have made a jailbreak app to get around police blockades :)

Re:Just because it's Texas....

[berashith]

there used to be a tactic (not sure if it is still applied) where DEA would put a sign up saying drug enforcement checkpoint 2 miles. This would be about a half a mile before an exit. The checkpoint didnt exist, but there would be plenty of DEA at the top of the next exit, waiting for any suspicious looking types that may be attempting to dodge a checkpoint.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

One weekend, in my younger days, I was driving along minding my own business with a twelve pack of Budweiser in the back seat, a flaming bong on the console, and a car load of friends. Needless to say, we were already high and drunk as shit, but we deemed it necessary to bring along supplies. I don't know what I was doing, I think we were hungry. But anyway, much to my chagrin I spotted what looked like a gauntlet of police cars on the road up ahead--all with their lights on. Cops were standing everywhere with flashlights, lo-and-behold it was a random DUI checkpoint--a big one. Finally, it was my turn, the bong had been stashed, beer hidden, and cigarettes ordered lit and in everyone's mouth. They were puffing like mad in a frantic attempt to fill the car with cigarette smoke. Shew!! It worked! I rolled the window down, they peered in with the flash-lite and waved me on. The cigarettes even covered the smell of the urine I was sitting in!

this is how you roll at a DHS checkpoint

[tommeke100]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDLlEh0x2XA

So far, Kansas appears to be safe

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

Only one choice now.

[Anonymous Coward]

DEATH TO THE DRUGGIE!

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[cmholm]

I suspect you're correct... and it's because there isn't a surfeit of Canadians overstaying (or lacking) their permitted time in the US. Anyway, upstate is crawling with you guys. The system would grind to a halt if the BP started giving all of you the treatment.

Slippery Slope

[tranquilidad]

These checkpoints represent the epitome of the slippery slope.

I travel on this section of I-10 quite frequently driving from Scottsdale, Arizona to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. There are two permanent checkpoints on this stretch of I-10: just west of Las Cruces, New Mexico and east of El Paso (about 100 miles east). The U.S. Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte that these permanent checkpoints were constitutionally reasonable seizures because they were minimal in scope and time. When stopped, the border patrol agent will ask if everyone in the car is a U.S. citizen.

Then the slippery slope began and the border patrol started deploying drug detection dogs at the checkpoints. The dogs aren't generally used to do a walk-around of each vehicle. Instead, the handler and the dog are stationed down-wind of the vehicle. If the dog alerts while the occupants of the car are being asked about their citizenship then the handler and the dog will approach the car and attempt to do a more thorough check and/or search.

Checkpoints to check for illegal drugs have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This type of hybrid check has not been challenged at that level yet.

This is a classic example of a slippery slope where the government justifies an action for one reason and then starts piggybacking on top of that action.

If any of the Supreme Court justices had actually driven through one of these checkpoints they would probably not have concluded that the stop was minimally invasive.

It is outrageous to me that anyone driving down the highway in this country can be stopped, interrogated and searched.

A side note: On my last drive through the checkpoint near Sierra Blanca, Texas on I-10 the car in front of me was released after answering the citizenship question. The drug dog and handler were next to my car, about 30 feet behind the car being checked, and the dog alerted. The border patrol called to the car to stop and the handler and dog approached the car. The dog immediately took a left turn and stuck his nose up the tailpipe of a border patrol pickup truck and either refused or couldn't extricate his nose. We had to wait a few minutes while they got the dog free from the pickup truck.

Re:Slippery Slope

[lexsird]

Indeed you are correct. I would have modded you up, but I wanted to reply. (that and I never mod..haha...don't give them to me)

This sets up a brutal police state mechanism. I think they will never give up their cash cow of exploiting the system for power and money. This "Drug War" was nothing but a power grab. They don't give one damn about what drugs do to you. This is their excuse and reasoning to hand to the "sheeple", as the legal system in this country is part of the glue that holds the whole corrupt mess together. It needs this empowerment.

Having some weed isn't a crime against even yourself. I feel that our diet is far more harmful to us, but you don't see State Troopers turning fat people away from McDonalds. What we have here with weed is a political crime. This is a crime, deemed a crime not by common sense or by virtue of it's negative impact upon society, but it's deemed a crime by those in power for their own whims and superstitions. It doesn't serve the common good to enforce this law. It seizes resources away from real crime, only to destroy lives and tax the system for job security and profit.

It has promoted law enforcement into such an intrusive roll into our lives, and we have accepted it. In effect, we have been conquered, but not by an outside power, but from within, and by our own system. The protectors have become predators, and their leash is held by those in power. It is not the general good public that is rightfully feared in this country, but it is indeed our own government.

This is a cancer that is eating our system up. Consider carefully how we as citizens have to be vigilant to remain free. Think of our government as the most powerful in the world. It's like a giant pit-bull that is suppose to protect us and our neighbors and friends. But as it's owners, we have to be vigilant in keeping it well minded, if it proves too much for us to handle, it has to be put down. If not, it will hurt people and turn on us.

Ponder carefully and objectively this analogy, and after you have applied it globally, consider if this subject is or isn't a sign that the pit-bull is or isn't dangerous.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm wondering if it really is his possession or if during the search they "found" marijuana, just because he was on some watch list. /tinfoilhat

Which people?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Last time I checked none of the candidates who even stood a change of getting a single vote were pro-cannabis or even just anti-drug war. So who are these people with their wishes and why don't they show up as voters?

If it REALLY was against the will of the people, the people could create a new party and vote for that party and get their wishes granted. Either weed makes you a a lazy bitch or unable to count.

Democratie is the dictatorship of the majority, you can call it unfair all you want but you look pretty damn stupid claiming all people are pro-drugs when only anti-drugs people are voted for.

Re:Which people?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it REALLY was against the will of the people, the people could create a new party and vote for that party and get their wishes granted.

This isn't true. The government, on all sorts of levels, does things that is against the will of the majority all the time. But not even half the population votes and then most of the ones that do care more about fringe issues and this or that soundbite or how the candidate "makes them feel."

There is no such thing as 'the will of the people.' It's a nice figure of speech but it's pretty meaningless in a society of diverse ideologies and a shit ton of apathy. When the will of the people is conflicted then a government of the people is conflicted and nothing gets done. Which is what has happened with pot. Some people are uncomfortable with pot because they think drugs are bad. Some people hate pot because they hate poor and black people and they tend to smoke pot. I like to refer to these people as assholes. Practically no one is morally against pot and the ones that are by that same standard must also oppose caffeine, alcohol, and any other 'drug' (if they knew more about science these moral dilemmas would probably disappear). But even if you're morally opposed to using pot because your a Mormon or a Muslim or whatever, that doesn't justify prohibition. The prohibition of pot is just as silly as if Mitt Romney were to propose running his campaign on a quest to outlaw caffeine and alcohol.

That's the sad thing about marijuana prohibition. It's not a tyranny of the majority, it's a tyranny of a minority. Guys who wear mustaches and sport billy clubs and get paid to keep the poor people in line. Guys who wear suites and work as CEOs for prison companies and who rub elbows with governors and legislators to increase sentencing.

Re:Which people?

[bouldin]

Your view on democracy sounds great in theory, but American-style democracy just doesn't work like that.

Here's an example. Georgia just changed its law about selling beer and wine at the grocery store on Sundays. Previously, it had been illegal.. for decades.

Under new law, cities and counties could hold referendums to allow/disallow sunday sales in their area. In almost all of the cities/counties that held a vote, Sunday sales won in a landslide.. typically 70+% approving.

Now, this new law nearly died in the 2011 state congress thanks to special interest groups like the Christian Coalition. In fact, Sunday sales were kept illegal for decades due to their efforts, even though it is clearly what the majority wanted. This tells me the Christian Coalition and groups like it successfully suppressed democracy for DECADES, against the wishes of a 70+% majority!

Re:Which people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up "First Past the Post" voting and you'll discover that a third part candidate is pretty much an impossibility at this point, no matter what their stance. Unless they implement some other sort of voting method, heck, just about any other voting method, we're pretty much stuck with Republican or Democrat. Since it would take either a Republican or Democrat to implement it, it'll never be changed. Welcome to America, where only around 20% of the populace actually gets someone in office they support.

better solution, carry a vial of concentrate

[Anonymous Coward]

Some mustard, garlic, maybe a little capasaicin, and the dog will be laid up for a week.

Of course, they may charge you with assault if they figure it out.

So carry some bitch urine to spray on their pants.

You should have been JAILED

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm down with marijuana but driving while intoxicated is, simply put, an asshole move.

Re:You should have been JAILED

[Opportunist]

Only way to avoid them finding it in your car is carrying it in your blood...

Re:You should have been JAILED

[catmistake]

I'm down with marijuana but driving while intoxicated is, simply put, an asshole move.

Only time ever... Jerry Garcia had just died, I was moving, and I didn't have any acid.

Don't forget the war!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are at war. The constitution does not matter.
If this is what is needed to deny terrorists access to drug money, then we must do it.

Re:Don't forget the war!

[EvilBudMan]

Nixon called it that mainly to get drugs out of the military. If he were alive now, he would think things have gone a touch too much.

Re:Don't forget the war!

[Opportunist]

Tells you something about the state of the government when people say Nixon would think "things have gone a touch too much".

Next step, McCarthy would think that...

Re:Don't forget the war!

[EvilBudMan]

Exactly.

Re:Don't forget the war!

[lennier]

Tells you something about the state of the government when people say Nixon would think "things have gone a touch too much".

Putting things in perspective a little, it was I-actually-am-a-crook Nixon who decided that the Vietnam War had gone a touch too far and ended it.

So that says something about the state of the US Government even in the 1970s.

Given that info the

[Anonymous Coward]

three-sigma rule applies

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[preaction]

Is the Internet within 100 miles of any border or airport? Or is it within 100 miles of every border and airport?

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[EvilBudMan]

Well it all goes back to drinking and driving. MADD got sobriety check points put up anywhere they decide to check pretty much. Join DAMM "drunks against mad mothers" if you want to get that changed.

rule #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay at least 200miles from the southern borders because these are "Constitution Free Zones".

It doesn't matter if you're a "criminal" or not. You have no rights there.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see someone took down that sonnovabitch.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what's hard to understand. Checking cars on major roads several miles within these un-walled borders is a good way to catch people. The density is better than all the hinterland of the border, and than in the nearest cities. Also and the border-jumpers have relaxed a bit from the full-alert they had while sneaking over the line, and are willing to accept/risk a ride.

As for your anecdote, you just weren't on the priority list of what to check that day. Could be as simple as "we've been told to hassle the tourists less". You didn't look like what they wanted, and they didn't have time to use the border-patrol-budget for general shakedowns with the drug dogs 'n' such.

Might add the 'budget' aspect is a big portion of this. The police get funds for specific projects, and are expected to show activity on specific projects. Mixed-search like these show up good on border-enforcement and war-on-drugs ledgers. I mean, look at the other way, how would you act as Manager here? This is just the result of time-management needs. If this was a RTS, you'd totally do exactly this.

Now to be know as....

[Anonymous Coward]

GeoPot?

ignore

[jeti]

commenting to undo an accidential moderation

Why was he carrying any?

[gknoy]

While I too dislike the idea of "border" checkponts, I have to wonder ... why the hell would Geohot, let alone anyone, be carrying drugs? It seems tremendously foolish.

Re:Why was he carrying any?

[arkane1234]

que the "riiigghhhhtttssss maaaaaaannnn" people...
I agree man, if you're traveling through areas that are have federal enforcement agents (that uphold federal laws.. known federal laws...!) then don't carry things that are against federal laws. It doesn't matter what anyone in the world feels about whether the laws are right or wrong, that's just the cold hard facts.
The courtrooms are the place to change these things, not the streets.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the only kind. When you cross the border you go through customs.

Yes

[SuperKendall]

I take it you are doing better than those people, because they are stupid and you are not?

For at least one day, he is in fact doing much better than any of them were on the other respective days they stupidly tried to cross with drugs.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

For at least one day, he is in fact doing much better than any of them were on the other respective days they stupidly tried to cross with drugs.

They didn't cross the boarder. This "boarder checkpoint" is entirely inside the US. It was justified based on anti-illegal immigrant fervor.

Re:Yes

[Local ID10T]

I take it you are doing better than those people, because they are stupid and you are not?

For at least one day, he is in fact doing much better than any of them were on the other respective days they stupidly tried to cross with drugs.

Sadly, U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints and crossing the border are not necessarily related...

Sorry but illegal is illegal

[SuperKendall]

I am totally for legalizing pot, but I also realize the current reality is that any amount is illegal. It's not like "a small bottle of alcohol" because that is not illegal. Any time you are carrying any drugs that are deemed illegal you must realize the risk of arrest if discovered, even if in reality the chances of that are very low as things are.

Re:Sorry but illegal is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, so you're one of those, "I'm not sure this is right, but this is what I've been told to do so I'm going to do it. Furthermore, I'm going to demonize anyone who doesn't do it." types. Explains your love of Apple.

Re:Sorry but illegal is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called respect for rule of law you faggot. If you don't like a law, work to get it changed, but while the law is still in effect and enforced, obey the fucking thing unless it is egregiously immoral. Potheads paying fines ofr misdemeanor possession doesn't fit the bill, so have a cup of STFU and go fellate your winphone.

Re:Sorry but illegal is illegal

[DaFallus]

If you don't like a law, work to get it changed, but while the law is still in effect and enforced, obey the fucking thing unless it is egregiously immoral. Potheads paying fines ofr misdemeanor possession doesn't fit the bill

How about sensible people who choose to smoke a naturally growing plant, instead of drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes which are perfectly legal despite numerous scientific studies illustrating how addictive and harmful they are, having their professional career ruined and thus their life ruined due to a drug arrest on their record? Is that immoral enough for you?

Constitution?

[dutchwhizzman]

Isn't an american citizen free to travel through the USA without being held at checkpoints by some part of the USA constitution? I'm not a citizen, nor do I live in the USA, but this is something that I understand is (or at least should be) in the USA constitution. Having to travel through a checkpoint every day does violate that.

Third passenger

[dutchwhizzman]

Q. Tarantino. Now *that* would be a road trip, though I doubt you'd need a road.

Re:Third passenger

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. Tarantino.

Now *that* would be a road trip, though I doubt you'd need a road.

Dont travel with Tarantino. You start the trip by arriving, then you leave and you finish up somewhere in the middle.

Test cops for 'roids, CEOs for coke

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be cheaper and yield far more arrests.

Unless, of course, terrorism though selective enforcement is the goal.

"Legit" Make-Work, helps pay the bills

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I've never smoked pot before, I know a ton of pot smokers and those I know are all great people. Insightful, kind, honest in questions of morality, etc.

Additions to anything can be destructive - video games, sex, coffee, booze, television - all this stuff could be argued as destructive to people's lives in extremely similar ways as "the pot". But hey, if it were legalized, then you could pay your hired bullies to go out there and shake down your population.. and turn over the good shit for you to enjoy.

Coherence in a rant is overrated. That is all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nomen omen

[Anonymous Coward]

Now he's known as "GeoPOT"

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Isaac-1]

This checkpoint is on I-10 just east of an area where I-10 paralells within sight of the Mexican border for around 40 miles.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[L3370]

That's because we like you Canadians. Spend some time around the southern border checkpoints... I know a few white people that spend as much time going through checkpoints as I do, and they seem to have good luck not ever being screened. Get yourself some skin within a couple shades of brown like me and I tell you what...your odds shoot through the roof.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

And no illegal aliens, and visa overstays, and...

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[rwade]

These are very common in Arizona and So-Cal. On each of the 5 and 15 freeways between San Diego and the LA-area, there is a permanent checkpoints in periodic use by the Border Patrol almost precisely 70 miles away from the border. I wonder if there is something special about the 70 mile mark.

LINK & VIDEO

[cultiv8]

News story here, video here.

Hotz is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, I knew that dumb poser fucktard was a pothead too.

First Rule of Travel

[Nyder]

Do NOT carry anything illegal into the country you are going into.

Chances are you will be caught, and you do NOT want to get caught.

Take I-40...

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to avoiding contraband substances... I prefer to take I-40. There's more to see & do. Cut south at Santa Rosa, NM, and head into Lubbock from Clovis, and on to I-20, then take 183 into Austin.

Border patrol not the same rules

[Anonymous Coward]

As cops. No warrant needed. This has been discussed all over, check maybe Schneieir's site for more. BP's can do almost anything, confiscate almost anything, whole different set of rules for whatever is declared a "border crossing" even if it's not that close the actual border. It sucks, but this has been tested in courts over the confiscation and search of laptops that perhaps contained proprietary trade data, and travelling salesmen have had to adapt...

NOT a narcotic

[Anonymous Coward]

... just wonder what exact detrimental effect the narcotic use thereof is supposedly having on its users that ...

Marijuana is not a narcotic at all. Years ago law enforcement started lumping drug names together. ie: Crack-Cocaine or Mariuana-Heroin etc. Then it made it into media and parlance. Now it's being called a narcotic.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are a good number of people getting through checkpoints with drugs every day - where do you think YOUR drugs came from?

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[rickzor]

Yes, because no drugs are grown/manufactured in the united states.

Sorry, I agree with your point, tons of drugs get shipped in to the united states. Just had to play devils advocate.

End Prohibition Now

[ptudor]

Eighty years ago, alcohol was unconstitutional. Temperance unions succeeded in making dry counties a dry country and organized crime profited. Cannabis had not yet been vilified in place of beer.

Today, Budweiser advertisements can occupy an entire subway car on the New York MTA while the NYPD ensures >85% of those arrested for simple possession in both 2010 and 2011 are black or brown. What wasted resources! What an undue burden on citizens!

We must end the prohibition of cannabis. We must return justice to our courts. We must turn a black market into a taxed market. We must embrace research demonstrating controlled apoptosis in various cancers. You must join me. Prohibition harms everyone.

Further reading:

1. "Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes"
2. "Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression in human breast cancer cells through Cdc2 regulation"

It's worse than you imagine

[shiftless]

I can understand companies making some profit off of selling food and supplies to prisons, but *definitely not* from the actual imprisonment of people.

You'll understand it up until the point when you're actually in there, and find it costs $5 for a three second long distance phone call. The pricing for everything in there feels like being in Six Flags....without all the fun and amusement. They gleefully make money off other people's misery. What a sick industry.

I hope they throw the book at him...

[Anonymous Coward]

...As well as many other weighty objects. Georgie is a tool who may have found an interesting weakness or two, but did so on the backs of the Twiizers team who put in the vast majority of the blood, sweat, tears and solder that went into hacking the PS3, then crowed loudly to any media sites who would listen that HE was the one who hacked the PS3, definitely not those other jokers!

Then, after vehemently proclaiming that he would fight the charges against him tooth-and-nail when he was sued by Sony for what amounted to his tremendous lack of foresight and hubris, once it started looking like he might actually face real consequences in the real world for his real actions, he buckled like a belt and settled.

Seriously fuck geohot.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor

[Mister Whirly]

Marijuana is about the only drug you could claim is 100% grown/manufacturered in the US. We don't grow coca leaves or poppies in the US. And since they passed laws limiting the purchase of pseudoephedrine, it is now cheaper and easier to make meth in Mexico and smuggle it in rather than make in the US anymore. Most synthetic hallucinogens and party drugs are made in Europe or Southeast Asia and brought to the US. The only real market we have for drug manufacturers anymore in the US are the legal pharmeceutical companies.

Holy Crap People!

[Anonymous Coward]

All this talk about "illegal" border checkpoints and evil law enforcement, blah, blah, blah.

This schmuck, Willie Nelson, and Snoop Dog got busted for possession of marijuana. It is illegal in all but a very few circumstances to possess marijuana in the United States. Case closed. End of story. Done.

They got caught breaking the law. Why are you getting your panties in a wad? Why is this a story at all, let alone on Slashdot?

Checkpoints

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the days when you could drive from Texas to Florida and back without even a drivers license. What is this world coming to?

We're a democracy

[concealment]

How can idiots rule this country if all of us can vote?

For idiots to rule in a democracy, that would have to mean that most voters are idiots. That contradicts "liberty, equality and fraternity" to say that.

Are you opposed to democracy itself?