Abstract
Steven Dewayne Bond was a passenger on a Greyhound bus when a border patrol officer squeezed his luggage after conducted an immigration check of the passengers. Bond allowed the officer to open his luggage when asked, and a brick of methamphetamine was discovered that was wrapped in duct tape and rolled in a pair of pants. Bond was charged with possession and intent to distribute as well as conspiracy. In pretrial matters, Bond’s attorney filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine claiming that the search conducted by the officer was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion and Bond was convicted and sentenced to prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s holding on the motion but the United States Supreme Court reversed in its opinion claiming that the officer’s physical manipulation of the luggage was a violation of Bond’s reasonable expectations of privacy.
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)
Facts
Petitioner Steven Dewayne Bond was riding on a Greyhound bus from California to Little Rock, Arkansas . In Texas, the bus stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint where Border Patrol Officer Cesar Cantu boarded to ascertain the immigration status of the bus passengers. After passing through the bus to ensure immigration compliance, the officer proceeded back toward the front of the bus. When walking through the bus, the officer squeezed the luggage in the storage overhead of passengers as was typical. When the officer squeezed the luggage of petitioner, a green canvas bag, he noticed it contained a brick-like item. Petitioner stated that the luggage belonged to him and allowed the officer to open it wherein the officer found a “brick” of methamphetamine that was wrapped in duct tape and rolled in pants.
Petitioner was indicted for conspiracy, possession, and distribution of methamphetamine. Before trial, petitioner moved to suppress the drugs, claiming that the officer’s search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion and he was convicted and sentenced to fifty-seven months in prison. The petitioner appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress finding no Fourth Amendment violation in the officer’s actions. Petitioner appealed to the United States Supreme Court whose opinion is addressed herein.
Main issues on Appeal to the United States Supreme Court
Is the physical manipulation of a bus passenger’s carry-on luggage in the overhead a violation an unreasonable search and thus in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Does a bus passenger have an actual expectation of privacy in his carry-on luggage?
If a passenger of a bus does have an expectation of privacy in luggage placed in the overhead, is the expectation of privacy reasonable?
United States Supreme Court Decision
The officer’s physical manipulation of the luggage violated the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner had an expectation of privacy because he had an opaque bag and placed it directly above his seat. Although a passenger on a bus expects his luggage to be handled, he does not expect the luggage to be manipulated in an exploratory manner. The United States Supreme Court therefore reversed the of the Court of Appeals.
Brief of the United States
The argument presented by the United States in its brief is that an officer’s touching of the exterior of luggage stored in an overhead that is shared with other passengers is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. The handling of the bag was not a search because it was knowingly exposed to public handling. And, touching or handling the exterior of the luggage is not a search because such touching does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. The United States argued that knowingly exposing an object to public observation removes any expectation of privacy that may have existed in the object. A privacy violation would only have occurred if Petitioner had shown a subjective privacy expectation in the luggage and if society believed such an expectation was objectively reasonable. Neither existed in this situation alleged the United States.
A search in violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs when officers violate a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy. A legitimate expectation of privacy exists when the individual manifests a subjective expectation of privacy and society accepts such expectation as reasonable. Knowingly exposing something to the public is not protected under the Fourth Amendment. The officer’s touching of Petitioner’s bag was an act that the public would conduct with the bag as other passengers may “move, push, compress and otherwise handle” luggage of passengers in overheads in order to place their own bags in the overhead. The officer in this case conducted the same sort of handling other passengers would. Thus, Petitioner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage.
Additionally, the actions of the officer were not intrusive or excessive as his handling of the bag was not any different than that Petitioner should expect from the public. The touching of luggage by an officer is not similar to the inspection of the outer clothing of a person, which is a violation of privacy. The officer did not physically intrude upon the contents of the bag, and his handling of the bag was similar to a casual incidental contact expected by other members of the public.
Brief of Petitioner
The argument of the petitioner is that a traveler does not expose luggage to public handling by putting it into the overhead, and the touching of the luggage by the officer invaded the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
First, the luggage was not exposed to the public simply because it was placed in the overhead. A bus is not open to the general public nor is the overhead bin above the passengers. There is shared access but not public access. Even though the bus is shared with others, there still is an expectation of privacy just as in a home or office that is shared by family or co-workers. In fact, a greater expectation of privacy is placed in carry-on luggage as a passenger wishes to keep the luggage nearby. In placing the luggage in the overhead, the passenger retains a reasonable expectation of privacy. Minor intrusions such as shifting or moving the luggage may occur and be expected but not manipulations that reveal the contents of the luggage. As his personal property, a passenger has rights, and retains these rights, and these are rights to personal property that society acknowledges as well.
Second, the officer engaged in a touching in a much more significant way than a fellow passenger would. Other passengers may move or shift the luggage in overhead bins but they would not engage in an exploratory tactile examination. Squeezing the bag to ascertain its contents is not something another passenger would engage in. The officer engaged in more than a casual pushing or moving of the bag that would be reasonably expected from fellow passengers.
Third, the officer engaged in a search as it was a tactile examination of the luggage to discover objects in the bag. Bond had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the luggage. The officer entered the bus to conduct an immigration inspection and when he manipulated Bond’s luggage, he conducted a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” . The Supreme Court determined that the luggage belonging to the Petitioner is an effect that is protected in the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court first addressed the government claims that the petitioner exposed his bag to the public, and thus did not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court denied this allegation claiming that the petitioner did indeed have an expectation of privacy in his luggage. The government relied on precedent that established that held that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy in matters that are open to public observation. However, these cases, California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley, involved situations of visual inspection and not actual physical intrusion of personal property. Petitioner’s circumstances are more similar to the case of Terry v. Ohio wherein this court held that a tactile exploration of the outer clothing of an individual is a violation of privacy. The concern passengers have over carry-on luggage is more similar to the expectation of privacy of an individual’s clothing. Both searches involve a “probing tactile examination”. Although luggage is not the same as clothing, the expectation of privacy is similar because a passenger intends to keep a carry-on bag near his person and it contains personal property. The petitioner claims that the officer’s manipulation of the luggage was more than just a causal contact that a passenger would expect from the public.
In its analysis of the case, the Supreme Court addressed two questions relating to Fourth Amendment protections: whether petitioner had an expectation of privacy and whether such expectation was reasonable in a manner that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court did find that petitioner had an expectation of privacy because he used a bag that could not be seen through, and he placed the above directly above the seat on the bus. The passenger may expect other passengers and bus employees to move or handle the luggage, but he does not expect a manipulation of the luggage in an exploratory manner by these individuals.
In a notable dissent by Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia, these justices claim that a bus passenger does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in luggage placed in an overhead of the bus. The manipulation of Petitioner’s luggage by the officer did not exceed a handling that other passengers would have engaged upon in moving or shifting the luggage in the overhead. Overhead luggage is always rearranged and moved as other passengers attempt to place their luggage in the overhead. The lower court and the Court of Appeals correctly found the officer engaged in a touching that was minimally intrusive that was clearly foreseeable by the Petitioner. Knowingly exposing an object to the public does not allow the Petitioner to retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the object. An object placed in an overhead and undergoing a tactile inspection is not different than a visual inspection.
Relying on this analysis, the dissenting judges strongly concluded that finding a reasonable expectation of privacy in Petitioner’s luggage would upset the established legal principle of the Fourth Amendment and hinder law enforcement from investigating bags that are exposed to the public in other matters.
References
Bond v. United States - Merits. (1999). Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/bond-v-united-states-merits
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (United States Supreme Court April 17, 2000).
Bond v. United States. (2016). Retrieved from Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/334/case.html
Brief for the United States in Bond v. United States, 98-9349 (Supreme Court of the United States 1999).
Reply Brief for Petition in Bond v. United States, 98-9349 (Supreme Court of the United States February 11, 2000).
