http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1599526?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101140297863

Learn what the law actually is before commenting on what you *think* the law is.  It is useless to be outraged over something you do not even understand.  The legal principle predates Patriot by an order of magnitude.

Whether it is rightly or wrongly applied here is the issue, not that it exists at all.

I don’t know from other countries but I have come to the conclusion that most Americans are complete idiots about their own laws and legal system, even the parts that have existed for a century or more.

To me that says dangerous doped up idiot with a gun, at best.

That’s a rather European perspective. Carrying a gun is quite normal in Texas. You might choose to make inferences, but the facts don’t really offer many implications.

It’s not legal to carry a weapon in a vehicle while committing a crime…in this case, hauling enough drugs  to stun a moose.

Drug use makes you stupid seems to be the only logical reason these people haul this much stuff into paces known to be just the wee bit harsh on such projects.

I understand “rappers’ generally seek to have arrest records in order to boost their “cred” so there’s no accounting for this level of stupidity in nay case.

out of state plates are reason enough? in my day, speeding was a traffic stop, or a broken tail light. reminds me of the pilot episode of andy griffith w/ danny kaye in the place of willy, nelly, and the rest.

? : locals with gunracks in pickups are exempt?

If you buy three cases of whiskey because it’s on sale, having 36 bottles of whiskey in the trunk of your car doesn’t make it non-recreational. Heck, Anheuser-Busch owns a helluva lot of beer at any given moment, but that doesn’t make the beer non-recreational.

I’m not clear on whether the zone includes merely international airports themselves, or also 100 mile circles around international airports.

In any case, the law does clearly apply to both land and sea borders (which are generally 3 miles out from the coast), and inland ports (like Chicago’s) – which I guess would mean your protection against suspicionless searches generally only stops 97 miles from the coast, vs 100 miles from a land border.

Of course there’s slightly more nuance to it than that – but the courts have still upheld things like ‘the intersection of two or more roads that lead to the border’ to be ‘equivalent to the border’ – so basically any crossroads within the 100 mile zone may still be fourth-amendment-free…

I’m not saying his actions are an argument against legalisation of weed (or even heroin). But what his idiocy does is make it harder to *argue for* a rational drug policy and against random drug searches, because as far as the public at large are concerned: OMG! the cops caught a BAD GUY. With HEROIN. And a GUN. 

They could at least have taken the time and care to have identified international airports and drawn 100 mile bubbles around those. It would still not have reflected the jurisprudence, but at least it would have had some sense to it.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

I’m certainly not one to advocate drug use, but if you’re going to do something illegal, are you going to do it where people are looking to bust you for it?

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