cannabisnews.com: Court Rules on Search Ramifications





Court Rules on Search Ramifications
Posted by FoM on April 17, 2000 at 09:27:08 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: New York Times
Police are conducting a search, and therefore must comply with constitutional requirements, when they squeeze someone's luggage to determine if drugs might be inside, the Supreme Court ruled today. The 7-2 decision in a Texas case said a U.S. Border Patrol agent who felt a bus passenger's bag violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches. The bag later was found to contain drugs. 
``Physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. A bus passenger ``does not expect that other passengers or bus employees will, as a matter of course, feel the bag in an exploratory manner.'' ``But this is exactly what the agent did here,'' the chief justice said. ``We therefore hold that the agent's physical manipulation of (the passenger's) bag violated the Fourth Amendment.'' Today's decision reverses the conspiracy and drug-possession convictions of Steven Dewayne Bond, who was a passenger on a Greyhound bus stopped at an immigration checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas. The bus had traveled from California and was en route to Arkansas. A Border Patrol agent checked the passengers' immigration status, then felt their luggage, including bags in overhead bins. The agent squeezed a canvas bag in the bin over Bond's seat, and the shape of a ``brick-like'' object inside led him to suspect it contained drugs. When the agent asked Bond if he could open the bag, Bond said, ``Go ahead.'' The agent found, wrapped inside a pair of pants, a brick-like object covered in tape. Tests showed it contained methamphetamine. Bond asked a trial judge in 1997 to rule the drug could not be used as evidence, contending the officer's squeezing of the bag amounted to a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. The amendment generally prohibits searches unless police have ``probable cause'' to believe they will find evidence of a crime. The judge ruled against Bond, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The appeals court said Bond gave up any reasonable expectation of privacy when he ``exposed'' the bag to the public by putting it in the overhead bin. Today, the Supreme Court said the 5th Circuit court was wrong. Rehnquist said today's case was different from two previous cases in which the nation's highest court held that police observation of someone's backyard or a greenhouse from a plane or helicopter did not amount to a search. Those cases involved ``only visual, as opposed to tactile, observation,'' the chief justice said. ``Travelers are particularly concerned about their carry-on luggage; they generally use it to transport personal items that ... they prefer to keep close at hand,'' Rehnquist wrote. His opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. Writing for the two, Breyer said a police officer's squeezing of a bag was no different from what other passengers might be expected to do. ``At worst, this case will deter law enforcement officers searching for drugs near borders from using even the most non-intrusive touch to help investigate publicly exposed bags,'' Breyer said. Travelers who want to safeguard the contents of their luggage ``from public touch should plan to pack those contents in a suitcase with hard sides.'' The case is Bond vs. U.S., 98-9349. On the Net: For current Supreme Court decisions: http://www.supremecourtus.gov or http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ and click on ``this month's decisions.'' Washington (AP)Published: April 17, 2000Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company Related Articles:Police Search Powers Argued at High Courthttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4920.shtmlWhat Evidence Do Police Need for a Search?http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4911.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by mungojelly on April 17, 2000 at 10:56:37 PT:
Supreme Court Justice's advice on smuggling drugs
"plan to pack those contents in a suitcase with hard sides" -- thank you, Mr Breyer, that's how i'll pack my meth from now on. & are we really expected to believe that someone with a suitcase full of illegal drugs just "consents" to a search? Oh sure, officer, "go ahead," the methamphetamine is in this here pocket over here, you're not going to arrest me or anything are ya? Cops should not be allowed to pretend that they had consent to search something when there is no reason that such consent would be given. By allowing this exception to due process the courts are turning a blind eye towards an essential nullification of the prohibition of unwarranted searches -- not just in theory but in fact. In fact, the usual pig procedure for obtaining "consent" to search your bag is (& try to imagine this with an appropriately arrogant & aggressive snarl, & remember it's coming from someone with a loaded deadly weapon) "hand me that bag." 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: