Bond v. United States (2000)

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]

Bond v. United States
Argued February, 2000
Decided April 17, 2000
Full case nameSteven Dewayne Bond v. United States of America
Citations529 U.S. 334 (more)
120 S. Ct. 1462; 146 L. Ed. 2d 365
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Bond, 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 528 U.S. 927 (1999).
SubsequentRemanded, 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
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
DissentBreyer, joined by Scalia

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]

gollark: Screenshots?
gollark: What's nil?
gollark: Again, what do you *mean* "not working"?
gollark: ```luasetmetatable(string_mt, bin_mt)if debug then debug.setmetatable(nil, bin_mt) end```
gollark: What do you mean "not working"?

References
  1. Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 339 (2000).
  2. Bond, 529 U.S. at 335.
  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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.