Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court Fourth Amendment case that applied the ruling of Minnesota v. Dickerson to luggage, which held that police may not physically manipulate items without a warrant without violating the Fourth Amendment.[1] The Court ruled that this satisfied the two prong test established by Katz v. United States that, (1) a subjective expectation of privacy in the area in question and (2) that the expectation is reasonable in order for the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the Court ruled that since the Defendant tried to preserve his privacy by using an opaque bag and that it is reasonable for the Defendant to believe that his bag would not be felt in an "exploratory manner" that the two prongs were satisfied.[2]
| Bond v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February, 2000 Decided April 17, 2000 | |
| Full case name | Steven Dewayne Bond v. United States of America |
| Citations | 529 U.S. 334 (more) 120 S. Ct. 1462; 146 L. Ed. 2d 365 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Bond, 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 528 U.S. 927 (1999). |
| Subsequent | Remanded, 213 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2000). |
| Holding | |
| The agent's physical manipulation of petitioner's carry-on bag violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Scalia |
Background
editDuring an immigration status check of a passenger on a bus in Texas, a United States Border Patrol Agent squeezed the soft luggage of Steven D Bond.[3] The Agent thought the bag held a "brick-like" object.[4] After Bond admitted that it was his bag and then consented to a search of the bag, the Border Patrol Agent found a "brick" of methamphetamine.[5] Bond was arrested and indicted on Federal drug charges.[4] Bond moved to suppress the "brick" of methamphetamine on the basis that the agent had conducted an illegal search of the bag when squeezing it.[4] He claimed that this was a violation of the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.[4] The district court denied the motion, and found Bond guilty.[4] The Court of Appeals held that the agent's manipulation of the bag was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.[4]
Opinion of the Court
editIn a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that Agent Cantu's physical manipulation of Bond's bag violated the Fourth Amendment."[6]
References
edit- ^ Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 339 (2000).
- ^ "Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
- ^ Bond, 529 U.S. at 335.
- ^ a b c d e f Bond, 529 U.S. at 336.
- ^ Bond, 529 U.S. at 336. In a footnote, the Court noted that "[t]he Government has not argued here that petitioner's consent to Agent Cantu's opening the bag is a basis for admitting the evidence." Bond, 529 U.S. at 336, n.1.
- ^ Bond, 529 U.S. at 339.
External links
edit- Text of Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)