Name:
Case brief assignment
Prof:
Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 U.S.3669 (1993)
Facts of the case
Two Minneapolis police officers were patrolling the North area of the city in a marked police car in the evening on November 9, 1989. There was the defendant, Timothy Dickerson, in a known drug zone. At around 8:15 p.m., one officer observed the defendant leaving a 12-unit apartment building along Morgan Avenue, a renowned drug sale premise. Accordingly, after noticing the police car, the defendant abruptly halted and walked in the opposite direction. The action portrayed by the respondent aroused the suspicion of the police officers, who saw him enter into an alley on the near side of the apartment building. Due to the defendant’s temporary nature …show more content…
Indeed, the Terry search principle was regarded, and the limit to which it was supposed to be conducted was reviewed, Terry vs. Ohio case. The court further went into other cases that had resolved issues on the fourth amendment and the Terry search (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, in Michigan vs. Long, the Court held that in the context of that case, a Terry search allowed the search of the individual and passenger’s compartments of the automobile to ascertain beyond doubt that the defendant was not armed and dangerous. In limited cases, the Court held that when contraband is retrieved, then the officer cannot ignore the contraband as the Fourth Amendment does not suppress it under those circumstances. However, the court in Long had ruled that if police lacked probable cause in believing that the object in plain view was contraband then conducting a further search to make the object apparent would make the plain view doctrine unwarranted with the seizure of the contraband. The Minnesota Supreme Court, thus, rejected the plain view doctrine because, first, the sense of touch was inherently unreliable compared to the sense of sight. secondly, the sense of touch was more intrusive and, thus, infringed personal privacy, the core of the fourth amendment (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, the officer only determined that the lump in the pocket of the defendant was contraband only
Case brief assignment
Prof:
Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 U.S.3669 (1993)
Facts of the case
Two Minneapolis police officers were patrolling the North area of the city in a marked police car in the evening on November 9, 1989. There was the defendant, Timothy Dickerson, in a known drug zone. At around 8:15 p.m., one officer observed the defendant leaving a 12-unit apartment building along Morgan Avenue, a renowned drug sale premise. Accordingly, after noticing the police car, the defendant abruptly halted and walked in the opposite direction. The action portrayed by the respondent aroused the suspicion of the police officers, who saw him enter into an alley on the near side of the apartment building. Due to the defendant’s temporary nature …show more content…
Indeed, the Terry search principle was regarded, and the limit to which it was supposed to be conducted was reviewed, Terry vs. Ohio case. The court further went into other cases that had resolved issues on the fourth amendment and the Terry search (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, in Michigan vs. Long, the Court held that in the context of that case, a Terry search allowed the search of the individual and passenger’s compartments of the automobile to ascertain beyond doubt that the defendant was not armed and dangerous. In limited cases, the Court held that when contraband is retrieved, then the officer cannot ignore the contraband as the Fourth Amendment does not suppress it under those circumstances. However, the court in Long had ruled that if police lacked probable cause in believing that the object in plain view was contraband then conducting a further search to make the object apparent would make the plain view doctrine unwarranted with the seizure of the contraband. The Minnesota Supreme Court, thus, rejected the plain view doctrine because, first, the sense of touch was inherently unreliable compared to the sense of sight. secondly, the sense of touch was more intrusive and, thus, infringed personal privacy, the core of the fourth amendment (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, the officer only determined that the lump in the pocket of the defendant was contraband only