Bond v US Notes - Dissent from Justice Breyer and Scalia...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bond v. United States 529 U.S. 334, 120 S. Ct. 1462, 146 L. Ed. 2d 365 (2000) Procedural: District court (guilty). Court of appeal (denied motion). Bond was on a bus. Got to a boarder control checkpoint. The agent (Cantu) squeezed his bag on the way out, and noticed a brick shaped form. Bond allowed a search on the bag, and they found drugs. Unlike Cali v. Ciraolo, this was a observation via touching, which is more intrusive than looking. The agent’s manipulation of the bag beyond the scope of casual contact. Bond exhibited an actual expectation of privacy (because the bag wasn’t clear), and because it was a carry-on. And the expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Because, although bags are assumed to be handled, but not felt up on an exploratory manner.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Dissent from Justice Breyer and Scalia The squeeze was not of the unusual for Agent Cantu. The fact that a light squeeze of a cloth bag compared to the flying over 1,000 miles over a person’s back yard to be different in terms of a search. Not only does it complicate the matter, but also a stranger could do the same on a normal way to move around luggage or handling bags. I agree with the dissent on this case. If people have something to hide, put it in a hard cover case luggage, otherwise, it is reasonable to assume privacy from visuals, but not from touch, if it is in a soft covered luggage. The squeeze was not hard enough to break fragile stuff, so I think it was deemed okay....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM. PRO 125 taught by Professor Sobel during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online