Bond v. United States (2000)
| 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 |
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]
Background
During 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.[2] The Agent thought the bag held a "brick-like" object.[3] 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.[4] Bond was arrested and indicted on Federal drug charges.[3] 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.[3] He claimed that this was a violation of the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.[3] The district court denied the motion, and found Bond guilty.[3] The Court of Appeals held that the agent's manipulation of the bag was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.[3]
Opinion of the Court
In 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."[5]
References
- ^ Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 339 (2000).
- ^ 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
- Text of Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)