United States v. Alexis Gonzalez-Badillo, 693 F. App'x 312

At a Laredo bus station on April 10, 2015, Officer Rogelio Nevarez asked Alexis Gonzalez-Badillo for consent to search his travel bag after suspicious comments; Gonzalez-Badillo consented.
Nevarez smelled a masking chemical, found work boots in the bag whose soles felt "lumpy," and observed a slit showing plastic inside one sole.
Nevarez informed Gonzalez-Badillo he suspected drugs, offered the boots for him to smell, then manipulated the slit and used his fingers to pull open the sole, revealing heroin in a plastic bag; Gonzalez-Badillo was arrested.
Gonzalez-Badillo moved to suppress the physical evidence and inculpatory statements; the magistrate recommended suppressing statements but not physical evidence; the district court adopted that recommendation.
On appeal Gonzalez-Badillo argued the bag-consent did not extend to prying open the boot sole; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, ruling the search was within the scope of consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether general consent to search a travel bag included authority to open the boot sole	Gonzalez-Badillo: consent to search bag did not authorize dismantling/forcing open a boot sole (analogous to breaking a locked container)	Government: consent to search luggage includes looking inside items that reasonably might contain drugs; boots were suspicious and showed a preexisting slit	Held: Consent extended to the boot sole under an objective-reasonableness test; search was within scope of consent
Whether other Fourth Amendment exceptions (plain view, exigent circumstances) justify the search	Gonzalez-Badillo: plain-view and exigency do not apply; no lawful access to pry open sole and no exigent facts	Government/magistrate: relied on plain view/exigency as alternative grounds (dissent contests these)	Held: Majority did not need to decide other exceptions and affirmed on consent grounds; dissent argued neither plain view nor exigency justified the search

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness; scope defined by expressed object)
United States v. Maldonado, 38 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 1994) (consent to search luggage can include items within that reasonably might contain drugs; surrounding circumstances determine scope)
United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2003) (failure to object can indicate search remained within consent; totality of circumstances informs scope)
United States v. Osage, 235 F.3d 518 (10th Cir. 2000) (opening sealed container that renders it useless exceeds general consent)
United States v. Strickland, 902 F.2d 937 (11th Cir. 1990) (consent to search does not include intentional destruction/damage of property)
United States v. Jackson, 381 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2004) (consent to search bag included opening a baby-powder container where no damage occurred)
United States v. Marquez, 337 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2003) (removal of compartment covering was permissible where district court found no damage)
United States v. Ibarra, 965 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (consent does not extend to breaking boards securing an attic entrance)