Facts- Steven Dewayne Bond was a passenger on a Greyhound bus when his bus stopped at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Border Patrol Agent Cantu stepped onto the bus to check the immigration status of its passengers. He checked the entire bus and on his way back, he squeezed the overhead luggages. Bond was seated just before the end of the bus and above his head, Cantu squeezed Bond’s bag and noticed it contained a “brick-like” object. Bond admitted the bag was his and consented to a search. Agent Cantu discovered a brick of methamphetamine in the bag, disguised by a rolled pair of pants. Bond was indicted for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute.

Procedural Disposition- After Bond was indicted with federal drug charges, he moved to suppress the drug charges by arguing Agent Cantu conducted an illegal search of his bag that violated the Fourth Amendment. Bond’s motion was denied, the District Court found him guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Bond then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the …show more content…
Supreme Court cases California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley were cases that held any matters open to public, visual observation are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The difference in this case, however, was that this observation was tactile and physically invasive by Agent Cantu. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court stated that careful tactile exploration of outer surfaces of a person’s clothing is a “serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and is not to be undertaken lightly.” So even though Agent Cantu did not frish Bond’s person, he did frish his