Bond V United States 2000 Case Analysis

Bond V. United States (2000)

(529 U.S. 334, 146 L.Ed.2d 365)

Facts of Case

Steven D. Bond’s (petitioner) bag was searched by a US border patrol agent during a routine stop to check the immigration status of passengers on a bus. Bond was a passenger in the said bus. In the course of the said exercise, the agent happened to squeeze Bond’s bag and felt what could be described as a hard brick-like object inside the bag. After seeking and obtaining a search consent from Bond, the agent opened the bag and found the brick-like object to be methamphetamine. Bond was immediately placed under arrest and later on processed to face Federal drug charges.

Procedural History

In the district court, Bond sought to suppress the evidence presented in court (i.e. the methamphetamine brick) – arguing that the agent’s move to squeeze the bag was in itself an illegal search. For this reason, he was of the opinion that the said officer violated the unreasonable searches as well as seizures prohibition as captured in the Fourth Amendment. This motion was denied. Subsequently, Bond was found guilty. He appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals made a finding to the effect that under the Fourth Amendment, the agents move to squeeze (or manipulate the bag) did not constitute a search.

Legal Issue(s)

On this front, what was in dispute was whether the physical exploration/operation of an individual’s (in this case a passenger’s) belongings by a law enforcement officer could be deemed or considered a violation of unreasonable searches as well as seizures prohibition as captured in the Fourth Amendment.

Statement of Rule

Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches

Policy (if there is any)

The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures comes in handy in efforts to ensure that the citizens of this great country feel secure and are not prevented from the enjoyment of peace and tranquility in their homes, or subjected to privacy violations without valid reason.

Reasoning

It is important to note that as per the Supreme Court’s argument, the petitioner in this case had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sense that owing to the fact that the bag was his, he had a privacy interest in the same. More specifically, it was argued that “physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection...” and an individual travelling in a bus “does not expect that other passengers or bus employees will, as a matter of course, feel the bag in an exploratory manner” (Bacigal and Tate, 2014).