Slashdot Mirror


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."

79 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. You don't say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.

    1. Re:You don't say by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. Re:You don't say by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    3. Re:You don't say by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    4. Re:You don't say by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:You don't say by Radtastic · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      You stereotypers are all the same...
    6. Re:You don't say by fredrated · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    7. Re:You don't say by oldmac31310 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:You don't say by mpoulton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    9. Re:You don't say by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    10. Re:You don't say by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...)

    11. Re:You don't say by Local+ID10T · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    12. Re:You don't say by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. Smart people can be dumb by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Smart people can be dumb by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Smart people can be dumb by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Isaac-1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Smart people can be dumb by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Smart people can be dumb by dontPanik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:Smart people can be dumb by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Smart people can be dumb by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    10. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Smart people can be dumb by ewieling · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    12. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:Smart people can be dumb by El+Torico · · Score: 3, Funny

      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).

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    14. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Anrego · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    16. Re:Smart people can be dumb by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Smart people can be dumb by countach74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    19. Re:Smart people can be dumb by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    20. Re:Smart people can be dumb by Gutboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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".

    21. Re:Smart people can be dumb by cas2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:Smart people can be dumb by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    23. Re:Smart people can be dumb by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

  3. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Solution by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  4. Im still wondering... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Im still wondering... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.....

  5. jailbreak? by kirkb · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    1. Re:jailbreak? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. "When they signal" is the important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:"When they signal" is the important part by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:"When they signal" is the important part by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:"When they signal" is the important part by Taibhsear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  7. Meh by Anrego · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Meh by eratosthene · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      -- There, everybody likes a gorilla.
  8. Not crossing the border! by ehiris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not crossing the border! by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    2. Re:Not crossing the border! by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is this "Constitution" you speak of?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. How is this constitutional? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How is this constitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:How is this constitutional? by dd1968 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  10. Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor by tiptone · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

    --
    Please don't read my sig.
  12. Shop local! by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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)?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    4. Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  14. Checkpoint != Border by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  15. Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor by rwade · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  16. Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  18. Re:Fuck this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    If you know what I mean.

  19. Terrible evil! by bahstid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. These aren't new. by rjejr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. Effective at what? by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Effective at what? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Effective at what? by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Effective at what? by Creepy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Effective at what? by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  22. That Explains It by twmcneil · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  23. Slippery Slope by tranquilidad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. Re:Yes by Local+ID10T · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin