Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the such-a-nice-drug-war-you've-got-going dept.

Crime 578

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."

cancel ×

578 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You don't say (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367133)

"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 (3)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367241)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Legalize it!

Re:You don't say (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367523)

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

Re:You don't say (3, Informative)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367685)

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 (5, Funny)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367703)

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

Smart people can be dumb (4, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367135)

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (0, Troll)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367169)

You sir are also known as Satan's Cocksucker.

Re:Smart people can be dumb (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367219)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367281)

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 (1, Offtopic)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367429)

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 (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367641)

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 (4, Interesting)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367725)

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 (3, Informative)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367781)

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 (-1, Offtopic)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367399)

No! It's a conspiracy! It's Steve Jobs giving orders from beyond the grave. The 50 gazillion iPads collectively (like Communists!) form an etheric resonator network cloud designed to give meta-Steve control over the mind of anyone he chooses! In Mass Effect 3, if an iPad is placed near the XBox, you get a fourth rainbow-colored option at the end that converts the Reapers into giant Newtons! It's true! I *heard* about it! Now he's making candidate Rick Sanitarium vow to wipe out porn on the Internet.

Re:Smart people can be dumb (5, Insightful)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367331)

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 (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367531)

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367595)

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (4, Informative)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367559)

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 (5, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367719)

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 [wikipedia.org]

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 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367787)

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 (4, Insightful)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367333)

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 (0, Flamebait)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367455)

I always avoid Texas.

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367481)

Yay Alaska is okay!

Re:Smart people can be dumb (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367509)

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (3, Insightful)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367463)

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

Re:Smart people can be dumb (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367751)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367409)

Because he was high.

This Was Done To Make A Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367443)

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

Checkpoint != Border (5, Funny)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367457)

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:Smart people can be dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367511)

caught with what? his medical mj ?

Re:Smart people can be dumb (1)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367727)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367771)

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

Solution (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367143)

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

Re:Solution (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367425)

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

Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US border (0, Flamebait)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367155)

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

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367267)

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 (4, Informative)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367483)

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367519)

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 (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367541)

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". [aclu.org]

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367661)

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.)

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367283)

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 (3, Informative)

tiptone (729456) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367289)

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!

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367499)

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 (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367585)

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.

Re:Newsflash: they have drug dogs at Mexico-US bor (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367783)

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?

Fuck this law (1, Insightful)

raind (174356) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367179)

and Fuck Texas.

Re:Fuck this law (0)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367365)

I'll second that!

Re:Fuck this law (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367439)

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

Re:Fuck this law (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367695)

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

If you know what I mean.

Im still wondering... (4, Interesting)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367193)

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

Re:Im still wondering... (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367407)

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... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367521)

How exactly does that apply to I-10?

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

Re:Im still wondering... (4, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367765)

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... (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367605)

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 [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

jailbreak? (5, Funny)

kirkb (158552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367195)

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

"When they signal" is the important part (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367211)

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 (4, Interesting)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367581)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367651)

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.

Meh (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367213)

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 (5, Informative)

eratosthene (605331) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367525)

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! (5, Informative)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367217)

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! (1)

redbeardcanada (1052028) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367539)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367611)

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

lol

Re:Not crossing the border! (2)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367549)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367747)

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! (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367671)

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

Got App? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367237)

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

How is this constitutional? (5, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367247)

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? (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367417)

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? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367631)

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? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367721)

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

Re:How is this constitutional? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367537)

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? [aclu.org]
Constitution-free Zone Fact Sheet [aclu.org]
Constitution-free Zone Interactive Map [aclu.org]

Re:How is this constitutional? (3, Informative)

dd1968 (1174479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367737)

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 [gao.gov]

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.

If he had only read Slashdot... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367259)

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.

Here's an idea.... (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367301)

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

No worries (1)

Cyphase (907627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367303)

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 (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367501)

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, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367313)

is this a tabloid now?

Probably not actually a border checkpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367355)

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! (4, Informative)

Matt_Bennett (79107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367377)

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! (1)

Matt_Bennett (79107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367397)

: I meant Austin Independent Business Alliance.

Re:Shop local! (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367791)

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.

I'm shocked, shocked! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367393)

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

Re:I'm shocked, shocked! (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367441)

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.

A Pastor sued and won against the checkpoint (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367415)

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 (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367579)

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 (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367597)

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 (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367647)

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 (3, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367645)

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 (4, Interesting)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367711)

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 (1)

adrenaline_junky (243428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367723)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367731)

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*

And the question is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367467)

Who let the dogs out?

Misread TFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367593)

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.

Check news sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367667)

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? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367689)

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.

Terrible evil! (3, Insightful)

bahstid (927038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367785)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?