Brandon Wood

Eli Cameron
Period: 3-4
5/1/14

Bond v. United States

The issue that was brought up by Steven Bond was pertaining to his 4th amendment
rights. He was on his way to Little Rock, Arkansas, on a bus from California. On the way there
the bus was stopped by border patrol for an immigration inspection which was prosecuted by
Border Patrol Agent Cantu. Agent Cantu found all passengers as citizen of the United States of
America. He then starts to squeeze the passengers bags to ensure that there are no contraband
items. He approach Mr. Bonds bag and feel a brick like object. Mr. Bond allows Agent Cantu
to search his bag. Agent Cantu find a brick like shape package of Methamphetamine which
was covered in duct tape and wrapped in a pair of jeans. Mr. Bond was arrested and believes that
his 4th Amendment rights were violated. Mr. Bond believes that the initial squeeze without his
consent was the violation.
Was his 4th Amendment rights violated by the squeeze search that was done by Agent
Cantu? Does the suspect have a reasonable standing for his own belongings?
Bond did have a reasonable standing for his backpack, since the Methamphetamine was
well covered in duct tape and wrapped in jeans. However, Bond did give his consent to Border
Patrol Agent Cantu to search his belongings. Because of his consent to search his belongs, the
evidence that Agent Cantu found is legitimate to use in court. Had Bond not have given consent
to Agent Cantu to search his belongings when requested. The border patrol probably would have
searched Bond because of the suspicion of Bond and suspicion that Bond was hiding contraband
in his bag. Agent Cantus search would have been illegal is Bond had not given the Border patrol
agent his consent.
Because Steven Bond gave consent to Border Patrol Agent Cantu to search though his
belongings we find that the search did not violate Bonds 4th Amendment rights.