University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0013 | Tort Law
Academic year:

2022
Views:

403

Pages:

1
Author:

Carissa Thomas

Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 U.S. 366 (1993) FACTS: On the evening of November 9, 1989, two Minneapolis policer ofÏcers were patrolling an area on the city’s north side in a marked car. They saw a respondent come out of a building that was considered a crack house. When the individual saw the patrol car, they turned around and walked the other direction down an alley. The ofÏcer then went down the alley to investigate further. He did a pat down and discovered no weapons. He did feel a lump in his pocket that he thought was crack cocaine and reached into the pocket to find out it was. The respondent was then arrested. The court found that the frisk was justified, and also under the plain view doctrine, there was no violation of the fourth amendment. During the appeal, the court agreed with the trial court that the investigative stop and pat down search of the respondent was lawful under Terry because the ofÏcer had a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the respondent was engaging in criminal behavior and could be armed and dangerous. However, the court believed that the ofÏcer overstepped the bounds allowed by Terry in seizing the cocaine. The Court of Appeals found the seizure of the cocaine to be unconstitutional. The court refused to extend the plain view doctrine to sense of touch because it was too intrusive. QUESTION: Was the seizing of the cocaine a violation of a Terry stop? YES OPINNION: White 1. A Terry Stop is only to look for weapons for the ofÏcer’s safety, not to try to find evidence. 2. An ofÏcer may take nonthreatening contraband detected during a protective patdown search as long as it is within the confines of a Terry stop. 3. The ofÏcer knew it was not a weapon. 4. He knew that is was crack cocaine after he slid it around and squeezed it. That was beyond a Terry stop and was unconstitutional. CONCURRENCE: Scalia 1. The constitution should be held to what at the time that it was ratified. 2. The frisk is a problem in the case. 3. The founders would not have allowed such a thing to happened on mere suspicion.