Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 411.0

529US2

Unit: $U44

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

336

BOND v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Petitioner was seated four or ﬁve rows from the back of
the bus. As Agent Cantu inspected the luggage in the com-
partment above petitioner’s seat, he squeezed a green canvas
bag and noticed that it contained a “brick-like” object. Peti-
tioner admitted that the bag was his and agreed to allow
Agent Cantu to open it.1 Upon opening the bag, Agent
Cantu discovered a “brick” of methamphetamine. The brick
had been wrapped in duct tape until it was oval-shaped and
then rolled in a pair of pants.

Petitioner was indicted for conspiracy to possess, and pos-
session with intent to distribute, methamphetamine in viola-
tion of 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). He moved to
suppress the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu conducted an
illegal search of his bag. Petitioner’s motion was denied,
and the District Court found him guilty on both counts and
sentenced him to 57 months in prison. On appeal, he con-
ceded that other passengers had access to his bag, but con-
tended that Agent Cantu manipulated the bag in a way that
other passengers would not. The Court of Appeals rejected
this argument, stating that the fact that Agent Cantu’s ma-
nipulation of petitioner’s bag was calculated to detect contra-
band is irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes.
167
F. 3d 225, 227 (CA5 1999) (citing California v. Ciraolo, 476
U. S. 207 (1986)). Thus, the Court of Appeals afﬁrmed the
denial of the motion to suppress, holding that Agent Cantu’s
manipulation of the bag was not a search within the meaning
of the Fourth Amendment. 167 F. 3d, at 227. We granted
certiorari, 528 U. S. 927 (1999), and now reverse.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef-
fects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated . . . .” A traveler’s personal luggage is clearly an
“effect” protected by the Amendment. See United States v.

1 The Government has not argued here that petitioner’s consent to

Agent Cantu’s opening the bag is a basis for admitting the evidence.