Full case name Bond v United States Argument Oral argument | Citations 529 U.S. 334 (more) End date 2000 | |
Majority Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg Dissent Breyer, joined by Scalia Similar Arizona v Hicks, Knowles v Iowa, Kyllo v United States, Illinois v Caballes, Illinois v Wardlow | ||
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.
Contents
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."