Minnesota v. Dickerson

E522186

Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Minnesota v. Dickerson canonical 1

Statements (43)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
criminal procedure case
areaOfLaw constitutional criminal procedure
police powers and investigative stops
arguedDate 1992-12-09
citation 508 U.S. 366
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 1993-06-07
decisionType unanimous in judgment
doctrineRecognized plain feel doctrine NERFINISHED
holding The Fourth Amendment does not permit an officer to manipulate an object in a suspect’s pocket during a pat-down to determine whether it is contraband
The Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through an officer’s sense of touch during a lawful Terry frisk if its incriminating character is immediately apparent
impact established plain feel as an analogue to the plain view doctrine
limited police authority to manipulate objects during frisk
joinedByInMajority Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED
Justice Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED
Justice Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
Justice David H. Souter NERFINISHED
Justice Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED
Justice John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
jurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
legalIssue Fourth Amendment NERFINISHED
Terry stop
plain feel doctrine
stop and frisk
majorityOpinionBy Justice Byron R. White NERFINISHED
originatingCourt Minnesota state courts NERFINISHED
petitioner State of Minnesota NERFINISHED
relatedCase Arizona v. Hicks NERFINISHED
Terry v. Ohio NERFINISHED
remedy suppression of evidence obtained through unlawful manipulation during frisk
reporter United States Reports
respondent Timothy Dickerson NERFINISHED
ruleOfLaw Evidence discovered during a frisk is admissible only if the officer’s initial touch lawfully reveals its incriminating nature without further probing
standardClarified scope of pat-down searches under Terry v. Ohio
subjectMatter criminal law
search and seizure
volume 508
yearDecided 1993

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Terry v. Ohio subsequentCitationBy Minnesota v. Dickerson