Steven Dewayne Bond v. United States
Steven Dewayne Bond was traveling from California to Arkansas on a bus. A patrol entered the bus and started checking passengers' legal documents. On his way out, he decided to inspect the bags that had been placed in the overhead compartments. One of the bags was owned by Bond; the agent pressed on the side of the bag and found it contained a solid substance. The Petitioner finally permitted the agent to open the bag and inspect its contents. The brick thus turned out to be methamphetamine and Bond was arrested. He claimed an illegal search had been conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment with the District Court denying the assertion. It was charged that the petitioner possessed the controlled substance with intent to distribute it. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court and held that the squeezing of the object on the bus was not within the proscription of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's previous judgment by ruling that the search of Bond's bag was indeed unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment that prohibits police from conducting searches without a probable cause. Procedural History
Following the initial arrest, Bond claimed that Agent Cantu illegally searched his bag.
The District Court dismissed the arguments and Bond was pronounced guilty of possession and possession with intent of selling of the illegal substance; his sentence was ruled to be 57 months in jail. The Petitioner moved to appeal claiming that others on the bus could have placed the item in the bag. He also claimed that Cantu squeezing the bag first without his consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeal took no notice of this argument and responded that the Agent did not act beyond what his professional expectations required of him and that he was justified in inspecting the bag.1 The Court of Appeals moreover found Bond's contentions to be less than reasonably relatable to the Fourth Amendment. However, the U.S. The Supreme Court brushed off the governmental contention that, by placing this bag in the open location, the Petitioner reasonably assumed a risk that it would be searched or inspected. Instead, the Court relied on Florida v. Riley, 1989, and California v. Ciraolo, 1986, for its support of the point that that which is in plain view cannot be considered protected. Legal Issues The U.S. Supreme Court tried to decide or define if the fact of squeezing a bag of the Petitioner could be considered as a search requiring protection under the Fourth Amendment.
Indeed the Fourth Amendment states that "people have the right to be free and secure in their homes, belongings and protected against any unreasonable searches and seizures."1 By relating to Florida v. Riley, 1989 and the previous case of California v. Ciraolo, 1986, the Petitioner's luggage could be regarded as the object, which one wants to keep while traveling and thus being protected under the Fourth Amendment.
Statement of Rule Evidence was not obtained in good faith and the Bond's rights protected by the Fourth Amendment were violated. Policy
The laws cited in the case are instituted to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the police and other legal authorities.
Reasoning
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court; the Court judged that the search of Bond's items by Agent Cantu violated Fourth Amendment principles.
The Supreme Court held that a prior statement by the officials of the bag had to be put in the overhead compartment did not mean he forfeited his rights of privacy.
The Petitioner could not have had any reasonable expectation that his privacy rights would be violated.
In any case the bag would probably have been moved around or touched by the other passengers at one point of time or the other .
Florida v. Riley (1989)1 and California v. Ciraolo (1986) were relied upon in the judgment2. In the Ciraolo and Riley, the court explained, the police had merely used their sense of sight while in the present case, the object had been physically manipulated inspected through squeezing. The Supreme Court also explained that although passengers would expect other people would handle their bags, they did not anticipate that the contact will be made in a searching or inspecting manner. Holding The Supreme Court applied a two-part Fourth Amendment analysis. The first part was designed to answer whether there was a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding a public transportation medium like a bus, and whether such a belief could or should be deemed reasonable. It was the petitioner's contention that while he may have anticipated the passengers would come into contact with his bag, he did not expect that they could manipulate it in the way that Agent Cantu did.
Thus, he expected some reasonable level of privacy.
On the other side, the government contended that he had put the bag in the overhead compartment and boarded the bus with the bag as such and there the right to privacy could not be exercised. However, the Supreme Court still distinguished Bond's case from that of Ciraolo and Riley on the basis that the latter only involved visual observation not actual intrusion as Agent Cantu did. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the fourth amendment rights of Bond were violated because the items in a carry-on bag are personal effects a person wants to keep with them. Dissent The opinion has been delivered with a 7-2 vote by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Supreme Court held that "Cantu's squeezing Bond's bag was considered as a violation of the Fourth Amendment's principles."1 The Chief Justice read that the Petitioner "had a privacy interest in his belongings," which was also reasonable. The clear distinction was drawn between visually checking the bag and squeezing or touching it by the Agent. Justices Breyer and Scalia dissented, citing that there is no "reasonable expectation" that other passengers would not touch or squeeze luggage on a bus.