Jump to content

Bond v. United States (2000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 2 February 2015 (added Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court using HotCat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bond v. United States
Argued February, 2000
Decided April 17, 2000
Full case nameBond v United States
Citations529 U.S. 334 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
That the agent's physical manipulation of petitioner's carry-on bag violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
DissentBreyer, 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.

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. The Agent thought the bag held a "brick-like" object. 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. Bond was arrested and indicted on Federal drug charges. Bond moved to suppress the "brick" of methamphetamine, because the agent had conducted an illegal search of the bag when squeezing it. He claimed that this was a violation of the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court denied the motion, and found Bond guilty. The Court of Appeals held that the agent's manipulation of the bag was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The issue before the Court was primarily: was the United States Border Patrol Agent's manipulation of the carry-on luggage a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Opinion of the Court

After a 7–2 ruling delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that "Agent Cantu's physical manipulation of Petitioner's [Bond] carry-on bag violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches."

References