Jacob Sigismonti

Per.
5/19/15

Bond v. United States

Steven Dewayne Bond was a passenger on a bus that travel from California to
Arkansas. During the bus ride, the bus was stopped by the Border Patrol and was
checked for the immigration status of the passengers by Patrol Agent Cantu. During the
check, Agent Cantu ran his hands along the luggage as he traveled through the vehicle,
squeezing every bag he passed. Agent Cantu stopped when he felt a brick-like object
in petitioner Bonds luggage. With the consent of Bond, Agent Cantu searched the bag
and found a brick of methamphetamine wrapped in duct tape and rolled within a pair of
jeans. Steven Dewayne Bond petitioned the squeeze of his luggage was a violation of
his reasonable expectation of privacy. Was Bonds expectation of privacy violated by
Patrol Agent Cantus squeeze of his bag?
The tricky part of this case is what is being challenged. Does the search have
really have anything to do with this case? Or is the initial squeeze of the bag the
violation. Well the correct rule to use in this case must be based on whether Bonds
reasonable expectation to privacy was violated by the squeeze of the bag or not. This is
because Agent Cantu was given consent from Bond, therefore it was a reasonable
search conducted by Cantu and not a violation of Bonds privacy. We can apply the rule
from Katz v. U.S. (1967) to decide if Bonds reasonable expectation to privacy was
disrupted. First, we 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 expectation of
privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
While Bond may have given the Agent permission to search his belongings, his
actions definitely sought to keep his affairs private, The brick had been wrapped in
duct tape until it was oval-shaped and then rolled in a pair of pants. Obviously Bond
enacted this to keep the affairs invisible to another person. Therefore, he has exhibited
an actual expectation of privacy. Also, we need to take into consideration the second
statement, whether or not society would agree with the touching of the soft luggage.
While, an everyday person might touch your bag in order to make space, their goal is
very different than Agent Cantus. His squeeze of the bag was intended to search the
bag, it was not an accidental brush or an act to make space for his own luggage. After

applying the Katz v. U.S. rule it is easy to find that this was a violation of Bonds
reasonable expectation to privacy.
When reviewing the Bond v. U.S. case, the violation of Bonds reasonable
expectation to privacy was definitely present. It is certainly unreasonable for a Patrol
Agent to squeeze an individuals personal belongings at random. After applying the rule
from Katz v. U.S, the Court decided that the action of the illegal grab of the bag without
permission and the intent to inspect the bag was completely unreasonable and intrusive
on Bonds reasonable expectation to privacy.