Briana Staples

Humanities Per.
23 May, 2015
Bond v. United States
April 17, 2000
In Sierra Blanca, Texas Petitioner Steven Dewayne Bond accused Border Patrol Agent
Cesar Cantu of violating his Fourth Amendment Rights. Petitioner Bond was a aboard a
Greyhound bus headed toward Little Rock, Arkansas when the bus stopped at a mandatory
Border Patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas. There Agent Cantu bordered the bus, to check
the immigration status of its passengers. After...having satisfied himself that the passengers were
lawfully in the United States, Agent Cantu began walking toward the front. Along the way, he
squeezed the soft luggage (pg.1 p.2). Soon after Agent Cantu came upon Petitioner Bonds bag
after squeezing the bag he found a brick-like object, Agent Cantu proceed to search the bag
after, Petitioner admitted that the bag was his and agreed to the search. The search uncovered
the brick-like object to be a brick of methamphetamine that, had been wrapped in duct
tape...then rolled in a pair of pants (pg.1 p.3). Agent Cantu, then convicted Petitioner Bond for
the possession and the intent to distribute methamphetamine. Thus bringing the alleged breach of
privacy and what society considers a reasonable search, into question.
When determining whether Petitioner Bonds Fourth Amendment Rights were, in fact,
violated by Agent Cantu squeezing his bag two conditions, determined by the case Katz v. U.S
(1967), must be considered. For the, first we [must] ask whether the individual, by his conduct,
has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; that is, whether he has shown that he [sought] to
preserve [something] as private. Second, we inquire whether the individuals expectations of
privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Meaning, that in order to
determine if Agent Cantus squeeze violated Petitioners Fourth Amendment Rights it must be
decided if Agent Cantu invaded a space that Petitioner sought to keep private, and if Agent
Cantus reason for the bag search is deemed reasonable by society.
In this case, Border Patrol Agent Cantu did board the bus, as mandated by the state, with
only the intent of checking, the immigration status of its passengers, yet the squeeze of the
bags was not necessarily intrusive. Agent Cantu simply squeezed each of, the soft overhead
luggage...in the overhead storage space that is easily accessible to anyone on board at anytime,
meaning that Agent Cantu did not invade any privacy barrier by squeezing the bags (pg.1 p.2).
Agent Cantu was following official protocol by boarding the bus, and did not invade any
passengers privacy more so than that of any other passenger on board was able to, thus making
Agent Cantus search of Petitioners bag, in the easily accessible compartment, one that society
would agree to being reasonable. It was after noticing the brick-like object in Petitioners bag,
through the squeeze, Agent Cantu asked as to whether the bag belonged to Petitioner Bond and
if he could search the bag. In response, Petitioner admitted that the bag was his and agreed to
allow Agent Cantu to open it (pg.1 p.3). In other words, he claimed ownership of the bag and its

belongings as well as consenting to a search thus agreeing to Agent Cantu entering Petitioners
bag in which, he [sought] to preserve as private.
Petitioner Bond brought the accusation of his Fourth Amendment Rights being violated to
the court. Bringing the actual expectation of privacy and the individuals expectations of
privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Agent Cantu assessed
Petitioner Bonds bag through a simple squeeze of the bags in the easily accessible overhead
compartment. Where Agent Cantu then noticed a strange object, after ward he gained
confirmation of ownership and access through Petitioners consent, nullifying the privacy barrier
of Petitioners bag. With these facts, Agent Cantu did not breach Petitioners privacy, of his bag,
nor can Petitioners claim the privacy of his bag for he gave consent for his bag to be searched.