Lucas Whirley
Minnesota
 Dickerson
 Minnesota was the plaintiff and was
charging…
 Dickerson, the defendant in
the case.








Timothy Dickerson was in well known drug
area.
Police were also nearby.
With previous knowledge of the area, the
police assumed Dickerson was up to no good.
Proceeded to search Dickerson.
Found small lump in jacket.
Didn’t know what the lump was.
Resulted in further investigating.
Police was searching Dickerson for weapons,
not for drugs.
 Officer inspected the lump.
 Lump was discovered to be 1/5 of a gram of
crack cocaine.
 Dickerson was arrested
soon thereafter.





Case was first heard in the Hennepin County
District Court.
Court had to look at Terry v. Ohio to
determine whether the search was legal.
Also had to look at the Fourth Amendment.
Dickerson was declared guilty


Case appealed to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals
One reason was whether or not officer went
beyond constitutional limits when seizing the
cocaine. This was dependent on probable
cause.




Court of Appeals ruled that officer had right
to pat down because of Terry v. Ohio.
Dickerson could have been involved in
criminal activity.
However, court said that officer crossed the
line when taking the cocaine; plain feel.
Case would make final stop at Supreme
Court.





Said seizure of contraband in plain sight was
allowable.
Officer had gone beyond the laws allowed by
Terry v. Ohio.
Did not have the right because he did not
know it was cocaine without investigating
further.
Unanimous vote to affirm.
Justice White wrote majority decision in which
he said that they must obtain warrant unless
conditions are present.



Ruling of this case made clear exactly how
searches are done.
Made exceptions clear for when warrants are
required and when they are not.
Police can only seize contraband by touch if
they can determine it is illegal without
investigating further.





“Fourth Amendment,” Cornell University Law School, n.d.; available from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment.; Internet;
accessed 17 November 2013
"MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law, n.d.; available from http://www.oyez.org/cases/19901999/1992/1992_91_2019.; Internet; accessed16 November 2013.
“Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993),” Cornell University Law
School, 1993; available from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2019.ZO.html.; Internet;
accessed 16 November 2013.
“Minnesota v. Dickerson: Impact,” American Law and Legal Information,
n.d.; available from http://law.jrank.org/pages/24147/Minnesota-vDickerson-Impact.html.; Internet; accessed 17 November 2013
“Plain View Dotrine,” The Free Dictionary: Legal Dictionary, n.d.;
available from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain+View+Doctrine.; Internet;
accessed 16 November 2013