Citation: Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).
Parties:
State of Minnesota, Petitioner
Timothy Dickerson, Respondent
Facts: On the evening of November 9th, 1989, two Minnesota police officers observed Respondent leaving a 12-unit apartment on North Morgan Avenue. The officers pulled to the side of the road and saw that Respondent had turned and started to walk away from the officers. The officers gained a reasonable suspicion that Respondent was carrying illegal drugs and proceeded to approach Respondent. One of the officers noticed a lump in Respondent’s left coat pocket and proceeded to frisk him. The police officer pulled a bag from the Respondent’s coat pocket and found that it contained cocaine. The police officers then arrested Respondent and charged him with possession of a controlled substance.
Prior Proceedings: The state trial court found Respondent guilty of the
…show more content…
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Furthermore, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, a police officer can stop and frisk a suspect with or without probable cause if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and