Statement of Facts
Minnesota v. Dickerson (91-2019) 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
On November 9, 1989, at approximately 8:15p.m., two officers in a marked squad car were patrolling the city’s north side. The officers witnessed an individual, K. Dickerson, leaving a 12-unit apartment building on Morgan Avenue North; this location was well known for selling cocaine. When the respondent noticed the officers he abruptly turned and entered an alleyway. Given Dickerson’s location and his actions after seeing the officers, they had reason to believe he was involved in criminal activity. The officers stopped the respondent and demanded he submit to a pat down. Upon administering the pat down, the officer did not discover a weapon; however, the officer felt …show more content…
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals also referred to the case Terry vs Ohio, and the court specified that the officer in the Terry case had motive to believe criminal activity was about to take place. Though, the officer proceeded to search Terry, he only conducted a surface search, as in his hands never stretched inside Terry’s coat. In contrast, the search performed on Dickerson was much more intrusive, and it went beyond a surface touch. Ultimately, the officer had to explore and manipulate the cellophane to conclude it was cocaine. In a situation, such as this, a pat down is not required to investigate the suspect for a crime; rather, it’s to insure the officer’s and other individual’s safety. Some states allow the plain touch exception; nevertheless, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused. The court maintained that the search performed on Dickerson was far more invasive than what is applicable under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the courts stated that by allowing the “plain touch” exception, there have been numerous unlawful searches and seizures conducted. Officers can confiscate contraband, and it can be used against the perpetrator; yet, it must be within the same boundaries that are set in place by Terry vs.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (91-2019) 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
On November 9, 1989, at approximately 8:15p.m., two officers in a marked squad car were patrolling the city’s north side. The officers witnessed an individual, K. Dickerson, leaving a 12-unit apartment building on Morgan Avenue North; this location was well known for selling cocaine. When the respondent noticed the officers he abruptly turned and entered an alleyway. Given Dickerson’s location and his actions after seeing the officers, they had reason to believe he was involved in criminal activity. The officers stopped the respondent and demanded he submit to a pat down. Upon administering the pat down, the officer did not discover a weapon; however, the officer felt …show more content…
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals also referred to the case Terry vs Ohio, and the court specified that the officer in the Terry case had motive to believe criminal activity was about to take place. Though, the officer proceeded to search Terry, he only conducted a surface search, as in his hands never stretched inside Terry’s coat. In contrast, the search performed on Dickerson was much more intrusive, and it went beyond a surface touch. Ultimately, the officer had to explore and manipulate the cellophane to conclude it was cocaine. In a situation, such as this, a pat down is not required to investigate the suspect for a crime; rather, it’s to insure the officer’s and other individual’s safety. Some states allow the plain touch exception; nevertheless, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused. The court maintained that the search performed on Dickerson was far more invasive than what is applicable under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the courts stated that by allowing the “plain touch” exception, there have been numerous unlawful searches and seizures conducted. Officers can confiscate contraband, and it can be used against the perpetrator; yet, it must be within the same boundaries that are set in place by Terry vs.