In Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a Border Patrol agent conducted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment when he squeezed a bus passenger’s soft-sided bag in an exploratory way to feel what was inside. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, which drew a line between the casual contact a traveler expects and the physical manipulation of luggage by a government agent.1Justia. Bond v. United States
What Happened at the Sierra Blanca Checkpoint
Steven Dewayne Bond was riding a Greyhound bus that stopped at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Agent Cesar Cantu boarded to verify passengers’ immigration status. As he walked the aisle, he began squeezing bags stored in the overhead compartments.1Justia. Bond v. United States
When Cantu squeezed Bond’s green canvas bag, he felt a hard, brick-like object inside. He asked to open the bag, Bond consented, and the agent found a brick of methamphetamine wrapped in duct tape. Bond was charged with conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison.1Justia. Bond v. United States
The Privacy Test the Court Applied
To decide whether the squeeze counted as a Fourth Amendment search, the Court used the two-part framework rooted in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States. The first part asks whether the person showed a subjective expectation of privacy, usually by taking steps to keep something out of view. The second asks whether that expectation is one society is prepared to accept as reasonable.2Constitution Annotated. Expectations of Privacy Analysis
Bond had used an opaque bag to shield his belongings, which the Court treated as evidence that he sought to preserve his privacy.1Justia. Bond v. United States
Why Squeezing Crossed the Line
The majority acknowledged that bus passengers know their bags may be moved or brushed by drivers and other travelers. Someone making room in an overhead bin, or shifting a bag for safety, is the kind of contact a passenger accepts when they stow luggage in a public rack.1Justia. Bond v. United States
What passengers do not expect, the Court said, is an exploratory physical probe designed to feel the contents and shape of what they packed. Cantu’s manipulation went well beyond the casual handling a traveler anticipates, and physical squeezing is more intrusive than a visual glance at the outside of a bag. That crossed the line into a search, and because it was done without a warrant or probable cause, it was unreasonable.1Justia. Bond v. United States
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, which had upheld the search.1Justia. Bond v. United States
What the Ruling Means for Travelers
If you travel by bus and stow a soft bag overhead, you accept that other people may touch or move it. You do not accept that a government agent may knead it to figure out what is inside. Bond keeps that distinction in place: accessibility to fellow passengers does not strip a bag of Fourth Amendment protection against tactile inspection by law enforcement.1Justia. Bond v. United States