Minnesota v. Dickerson

1993-06-07

Headline: Court affirms that police may not seize drugs found by touch when the officer manipulated a pocket beyond a weapons frisk, limiting when tactile discoveries can be used as evidence against individuals.

Holding: The Court held that while officers may seize contraband immediately identifiable by touch during a lawful Terry frisk, the seizure here was unconstitutional because the officer squeezed and manipulated the pocket beyond a weapons search before concluding it was drugs.

Real World Impact:

Limits police ability to seize items felt during frisks unless illegal nature is immediately obvious.
Requires officers to stop probing after concluding there is no weapon.
May lead to suppressed drug evidence when frisks exceed weapons-search scope.

Topics: police searches, stop-and-frisk, drug possession, evidence admissibility

Summary

Background

An individual leaving an apartment building known for drug activity was stopped by Minneapolis officers after he walked away upon seeing their car. The officers ordered a patdown to check for weapons. During the frisk, an officer felt a small lump in the man's jacket, manipulated it, and retrieved a plastic bag of crack cocaine. The man was arrested and later sought to suppress the drugs, arguing the seizure exceeded the scope of a weapons search.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether items felt during a lawful patdown can be seized without a warrant. It said that if an officer lawfully feels an object and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent, the officer may seize it, similar to the plain-view idea. But here the lower courts found the officer squeezed and otherwise manipulated the pocket after determining it was not a weapon. That further probing went beyond the limited frisk allowed to check for weapons, so the seizure was unconstitutional.

Real world impact

This ruling means police may only seize contraband felt during a frisk when its illegal character is immediately obvious without extra searching. Officers must limit tactile searches to what is necessary to find weapons; otherwise evidence may be suppressed. The decision resolves conflicts among courts about a plain-feel rule, but some aspects may still be litigated on remand in individual cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices agreed with the result but would have sent the case back to the state court for clearer factual findings; one separate opinion emphasized originalist views on frisks.