New York Immigration Lawyers

Home ›› Court Opinions Topics & Themes   Asset Forfeitures   Conspiracy   Drug Policy Opinion   Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects   First Amendment   Justiciability   Medicinal Marijuana   Policy Considerations   Proportionality   Reasonable Expectation of Privacy   Searches and Seizures      Airports      Borders      Consent      Drug Testing      Dwellings      Exclusionary Rule      Grounds for a Search      Informants      Mail      Nuances of Detention      Personal Items      Private Action      Roads and Vehicles      Tools and Augmentation      Warrants   Sentencing and Penalties Authors Trivia

Court Opinions ›› Bond v. United States (2000) STEVEN DEWAYNE BOND v. UNITED STATES No. 98-9349 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 529 U.S. 334; 120 S. Ct. 1462; 146 L. Ed. 2d 365; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2520; 68 U.S.L.W. 4255; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2877; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 3853; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2053; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 247 February 29, 2000, Argued April 17, 2000, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Border Patrol Agent Cantu boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigration status of its passengers. As he walked off the bus, he squeezed the soft luggage which passengers had placed in the overhead storage space. He squeezed a canvas bag above petitioner's seat and noticed that it contained a "brick-like" object. After petitioner admitted owning the bag and consented to its search, Agent Cantu discovered a "brick" of methamphetamine. Petitioner was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu conducted an illegal search of his bag. The District Court denied the motion and found petitioner guilty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that Agent Cantu's manipulation of the bag was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Held: Agent Cantu's physical manipulation of petitioner's carry-on bag violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches. A traveler's personal luggage is clearly an "effect" protected by the Amendment, see United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110, 103 S. Ct. 2637, and it is undisputed that petitioner possessed a privacy interest in his bag. The Government's assertion that by exposing his bag to the public, petitioner lost a reasonable expectation that his bag would not be physically manipulated is rejected. [...] Physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection. Opinion by: REHNQUIST JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting: At worst, this case will deter law enforcement officers searching for drugs near borders from using even the most non-intrusive touch to help investigate publicly exposed bags. [...]

Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Funny Pics © 2007 Yakov Spektor Privacy Policy