Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 409

529US2

Unit: $U44

[09-26-01 10:00:50] PAGES PGT: OPIN

334

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

Syllabus

BOND v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the fifth circuit

No. 98–9349. Argued February 29, 2000—Decided April 17, 2000

Border Patrol Agent Cantu boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigra-
tion 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 own-
ing 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 de-
nial 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, 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, peti-
tioner lost a reasonable expectation that his bag would not be physically
manipulated is rejected. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, and Flor-
ida v. Riley, 488 U. S. 445, are distinguishable, because they involved
only visual, as opposed to tactile, observation. Physically invasive in-
spection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection. Under
this Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis, a court ﬁrst asks whether the
individual, by his conduct, has exhibited an actual expectation of pri-
vacy; that is, whether he has shown that “he [sought] to preserve [some-
thing] as private.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740. Here, peti-
tioner sought to preserve privacy by using an opaque bag and placing
it directly above his seat. Second, a court inquires whether the individ-
ual’s expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize
Ibid. Although a bus passenger clearly expects that
as reasonable.”
other passengers or bus employees may handle his bag, he does not
expect that they will feel the bag in an exploratory manner. But this
is exactly what the agent did here. Pp. 336–339.

167 F. 3d 225, reversed.