Minnesota v. Dickerson

508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

An officer observed D leaving a 12-unit apartment building known for drug sales. D began walking toward the police but, upon spotting the squad car and making eye contact with one of the officers, abruptly halted and began walking in the opposite direction. D turned and entered an alley on the other side of the apartment building. Based upon D's evasive actions and the fact that he had just left a building known for cocaine traffic, the officers decided to stop D and investigate further. They ordered D to stop and submit to a pat-down search. The search revealed no weapons, but the officer conducting the search did take an interest in a small lump in D's nylon jacket. He examined it with his fingers, and it slid, and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. The officer then reached into D's pocket and retrieved a small plastic bag containing one-fifth of one gram of crack cocaine. D was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. The trial court ruled that the officers' seizure of the cocaine did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The sense of touch, grounded in experience and training, is as reliable as perceptions drawn from other senses. ‘Plain feel,’ therefore, is no different than plain view and will equally support the seizure here.” D was found guilty. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The officers had overstepped the bounds allowed by Terry in seizing the cocaine. In doing so, the Court of Appeals “declined to adopt the plain feel exception” to the warrant requirement. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The court expressly refused “to extend the plain view doctrine to the sense of touch.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.