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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[Alien Being]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[GameboyRMH]

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

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

[X0563511]

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb

[craash420]

He was caught with a molecule, everything's bigger 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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[GmExtremacy]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[GmExtremacy]

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

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

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.

"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

[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

[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.

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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[elrous0]

What is this "Constitution" you speak of?

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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

[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!

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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:Fuck this law

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

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: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]

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: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: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.

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...

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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...