Student’s name

Instructor

Course

Date

Minnesota v Dickson

Summary; This is a case involving a police officer patting down suspected contraband and finding evidence of cracked cocaine in the clothing of the suspect.

Rule of law synopsis; in the search for weapons the search whereby a police officer detects through his/her skill and common sense that a person might have risky weapons pat-down search is allowed and it is lawful. And given the situation, a warrantless search is justified by the plain-view considerations. Therefore, in this case, it is the respondent who tried to hide or suppress the cocaine but still, a police officer realized it and went for it. Even though the seizure was important and necessary the court of appeal reversed the stand that it was lawful and the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the stand of the court of appeal. This is because the search went beyond what was acceptable under Terry.

The question and the issue herein is whether the seizure of contraband which a police officer has detected through their sense of touch when they are conducting a pat-down search is lawful or is permitted by the fourth amendment

In this case, it is noted that if the search goes beyond what is acceptable or necessary then according to terry it is no longer acceptable. However, if an officer stays within the bounds of the terry during the pat-down search then the search is valid and is not against the law. In this case, as well the resort to a neutral magistrate would almost be impossible and it will not do anything to promote the objectives of the fourth amendment. This is the same as when an officer is searching for contraband weapons whereby the officer is allowed to search the suspect for the weapons without a warrant within the plain view context. According to terry the sense of touch just by itself is capable of making the police officer immediately identify the sort of object or its nature. Terry has its stand in that the police officers have to be able to identify the contraband or weapons through the use of the sense of touch. In this case, the sense of sight and sense of touch are closely related. This is because the sense of sight according to terry is more reliable than the sense of touch.

The fourth amendment provides that the officer should have probable cause to believe that what they are seizing is harmful or contraband before seizing it. Apart from this the court was also concerned about the privacy of the person being searched and according to the fourth amendment; searches should be conducted in a manner that will not make a person’s privacy at risk. However, still, the seizure of a known item cannot be seen as an intrusion into a person’s privacy. Therefore the question in this situation is whether the law was followed during this search as stipulated by terry. The Supreme Court stated that the officer, in this case, overstepped the bounds stipulated by terry about searching for weapons or generally contraband items. Even though this search was necessary according to the Supreme Court the officer was “too much”. This is to mean that he went ahead with the search even though he had identified that the property or the item in possession was not a weapon. Therefore even though it is true that under terry the officer is allowed to search the suspected individual, it does not allow the officer to continue with the search further and therefore this is considered unlawful according to terry. In a conclusion, the search of the cocaine in the individual’s jacket was unlawful therefore this translates into the seizure of the cocaine being unlawful.

Works cited

Amsterdam, Anthony G. “Perspectives on the fourth amendment.” Minn. L. Rev. 58 (1973): 349

Brobson, P. Kevin. “Minnesota v. Dickerson: The Plain-Feel Terry Frisk Is No Longer Limited to a Protective Search for Weapons.” Widener J. Pub L. 3 (1993): 951.

Burkoff, John M. Search Warrant Law Deskbook. C. Boardman, 1987