Bond v. United States (2000)

Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States
	Supreme Court of the 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
	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
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.
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)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 339 (2000).

[2] Bond, 529 U.S. at 335.

[Rehnquist_336-3] Bond, 529 U.S. at 336.

[4] 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.

[5] Bond, 529 U.S. at 339.