MINNESOTA V.

DICKERSON
508 U.S. 366 (1993)
BRIEFED BY: Hershey Delos Santos

FACTS:
 One evening, 2 police officers were patrolling an area, which is a known drug area.
 While exiting an apartment building with a history of cocaine trafficking, Dickerson
spotted said police officers and turned to walk in the opposite direction.
 Based upon his actions and the fact that he had just left a building known for cocaine
trafficking, the officers decided to stop him and proceeded to frisk him.
 The search revealed no weapons, but the officer conducting the search did take an
interest in a small lump in his jacket. Without further evidence, he reached in and
grabbed the lump and found it was cocaine.
 Consequently, Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
 He requested that the cocaine be excluded from evidence because the officer violated
his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
 Trial court: denied his request and found him guilty; “plain feel” is no different than plain
view and will equally support the seizure here.
 Minnesota CA: reversed
 Minnesota SC: affirmed; expressly refused to extend the plain view doctrine to the sense
of touch on the grounds that the sense of touch is inherently less immediate and less
reliable than the sense of sight and that the sense of touch is far more intrusive into the
personal privacy.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the stop and frisk of Dickerson are valid.
2. W/N the seizure of the cocaine is valid.

RULING:
1. YES. The investigative stop and protective patdown search of Dickerson were lawful
under Terry v. Ohio because the officers had a reasonable belief based on facts that
Dickerson was engaged in criminal behavior and that he might be armed and
dangerous.
 The premise of the Terry decision itself was that the sense of touch may reveal
the nature of an object with sufficient reliability to justify a seizure.
 It is precisely the inference of Terry that the officers will be able to determine the
presence of weapons by the sense of touch; the seizure of weapons thus found
is clearly permitted by Terry.
 The sense of touch is less reliable than vision, but that does not mean that it is
never correct.
2. NO. The officers had overstepped the bounds allowed by Terry v. Ohio in seizing the
cocaine.
 Although the officers could search Dickerson for weapons, the seizure of the
crack cocaine was improper because the incriminating character of the object
was not immediately apparent to the officer.
 The officer who felt the cellophane-wrapped object could not have determined it
was contraband until he conducted a further search, unauthorized under Terry.
 Because further search of the jacket pocket was constitutionally impermissible,
the seizure of the cocaine from that pocket was also unconstitutional.