Minnesota v. Dickerson
508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If a police officer conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity as contraband immediately apparent, the Fourth Amendment permits its seizure under the 'plain feel' doctrine.
Facts:
- On November 9, 1989, Minneapolis police officers were patrolling an area near an apartment building they considered a 'crack house.'
- The officers observed Timothy Dickerson leaving the building.
- Upon making eye contact with the officers, Dickerson abruptly halted, turned, and began walking in the opposite direction into an alley.
- The officers stopped Dickerson in the alley and conducted a protective patdown search for weapons.
- During the patdown, an officer felt a small lump in Dickerson's nylon jacket pocket.
- After the officer determined the lump was not a weapon, he manipulated it with his fingers.
- Based on this manipulation, the officer concluded the lump was crack cocaine in cellophane, reached into the pocket, and retrieved the contraband.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance in Hennepin County District Court, a state trial court.
- Dickerson filed a pretrial motion to suppress the cocaine evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Following a trial, Dickerson was found guilty.
- Dickerson, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling the seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional.
- The State of Minnesota, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit the seizure of non-threatening contraband detected through an officer's sense of touch during a protective patdown search conducted for weapons?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, under these specific circumstances. The Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of non-threatening contraband detected through the sense of touch during a lawful protective patdown, but only if the object's incriminating character is 'immediately apparent' without further manipulation. The Court established a 'plain feel' doctrine, analogous to the 'plain view' doctrine, holding that if an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose identity as contraband is immediately obvious, a warrantless seizure is justified. However, in this case, the officer’s continued exploration of Dickerson's pocket by squeezing and manipulating the object after having concluded it contained no weapon was unrelated to the sole justification for the search—officer safety. This additional manipulation constituted a separate, unconstitutional search, and its fruits must be suppressed.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, as a general principle. Justice Scalia joined the Court's opinion in its entirety but wrote separately to express his doubt about the original constitutional legitimacy of the 'frisk' authorized in Terry v. Ohio. He questioned whether such a physical search on mere suspicion was permissible at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted. However, assuming the lawfulness of the frisk under existing precedent, he agreed with the majority's creation of the 'plain feel' doctrine and its conclusion that the officer's actions in this case exceeded the permissible scope of such a search.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, as a general principle. Justice Rehnquist agreed with the majority's adoption of the 'plain feel' doctrine. However, he dissented from the Court's decision to apply this new rule to the facts of the case and affirm the judgment. He argued that because the Minnesota Supreme Court had analyzed the case under a different Fourth Amendment framework (rejecting the 'plain feel' doctrine entirely), the proper course would be to vacate their judgment and remand the case for the state court to re-evaluate the evidence in light of the newly announced legal standard.
Analysis:
This case officially establishes the 'plain feel' doctrine, extending the logic of the 'plain view' doctrine to tactile discoveries made during lawful patdowns. The decision clarifies that a Terry frisk is strictly limited to a search for weapons; once an officer is satisfied an object is not a weapon, the constitutional justification for the physical intrusion ends. By requiring that the incriminating nature of an object be 'immediately apparent,' the Court prevents officers from using a protective weapons search as a pretext for a general exploratory search for contraband through manipulation and probing.
