Minnesota v dickerson case brief. Test #3, just the cases Flashcards 2019-01-07

Minnesota v dickerson case brief Rating: 6,8/10 1047 reviews

Minnesota v. Dickerson

minnesota v dickerson case brief

Clause requires certain types of forfeiture cases to proceed in personam rather than in rem assume. She fought the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Justice White, writing for the majority, began the opinion at the usual starting point in Fourth Amendment analysis: police officers must obtain a warrant before conducting a search unless the circumstances of the search fit one of a few well established and clearly delineated exceptions. The issue in Dickerson's case was slightly different from the Terry case. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U. Based upon respondent's seemingly evasive actions and the fact that he had just left a building known for cocaine traffic, the officers decided to stop respondent and investigate further. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the case because the offices had overstepped the bounds allowed of Terry v.

Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

minnesota v dickerson case brief

His suspicion aroused, this officer watched as respondent turned and entered an alley on the other side of the apartment building. Louisiana, , 19-20 1984 per curiam quoting Katz v. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. Believing this object to be crack cocaine wrapped in cellophane, the officer reached into the pocket to remove it. That doctrine-which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it-has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search. On 9 November 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officers Vernon D. The inside thigh and crotch area also should be searched.


Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson

minnesota v dickerson case brief

The state supreme court found that based on the record before it, the officer determined that the lump was contraband only after squeezing, sliding, and otherwise manipulating the contents of respondent's pocket which the officer already knew contained no weapon. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. The court concluded, however, that the officers had overstepped the bounds allowed by Terry in seizing the cocaine. The trial court first concluded that the officers were justified under Terry v. Respondent has not challenged the finding made by the trial court and affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court that the police were justified under Terry in stopping him and frisking him for weapons. The District court said that the officers were justified under Terry v.

Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson

minnesota v dickerson case brief

The very premise of Terry, after all, is that officers will be able to detect the presence of weapons through the sense of touch and Terry upheld precisely such a seizure. Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Application of the foregoing principles to the facts of this case demonstrates that the officer who conducted the search was not acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband. First, Terry itself demonstrates that the sense of touch is capable of revealing the nature of an object with sufficient reliability to support a seizure. The judgment is reversed, and the cases are remanded. That doctrine-which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it-has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search.

Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson

minnesota v dickerson case brief

Some state courts, however, like the Minnesota court in this case, have rejected such a corollary. If, however, the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object-i. I am unaware, however, of any precedent for a physical search of a person thus temporarily detained for questioning. The state trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the cocaine, and he was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Because this further search was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed is likewise unconstitutional. . The court agreed with the trial court that the investigative stop and protective patdown search of respondent were lawful under Terry because the officers had a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that respondent was engaged in criminal behavior and that he might be armed and dangerous.


Next

Test #3, just the cases Flashcards

minnesota v dickerson case brief

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again. The court concluded, however, that the officers had overstepped the bounds allowed by Terry in seizing the cocaine. Application of the foregoing principles to the facts of this case demonstrates that the officer who conducted the search was not acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband. The search revealed no weapons, but the officer conducting it testified that he felt a small lump in respondent's jacket pocket, believed it to be a lump of crack cocaine upon examining it with his fingers, and then reached into the pocket and retrieved a small bag of cocaine. Long, supra, for example, police approached a man who had driven his car into a ditch and who appeared to be under the influence of some intoxicant. All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited.

Next

minnesota v dickerson case brief

minnesota v dickerson case brief

Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. Facts On November 1989, two police officers were patrolling by a 12 unit building. That doctrine-which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it-has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search. His suppression motion having failed, respondent proceeded to trial and was found guilty. Although the officer was lawfully in a position to feel the lump in respondent's pocket, because Terry entitled him to place his hands upon respondent's jacket, the court below determined that the incriminating character of the object was not immediately apparent to him. Dickerson was found guilty at trial, but the conviction was reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Ohio in stopping respondent to investigate whether he might be engaged in criminal activity.

Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson :: 508 U.S. 366 (1993) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

minnesota v dickerson case brief

One chapter in this story involves the. Because this further search was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed is likewise unconstitutional. This led to suspicion amongst the officers. Johnson were patrolling an area on the city's north side. Andreas, , 771 1983 ; Texas v.


Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

minnesota v dickerson case brief

The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification. Based upon D's evasive actions and the fact that he had just left a building known for cocaine traffic, the officers decided to stop D and investigate further. Thus, if an officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons. Once again, the analogy to the plain-view doctrine is apt. This protective search-permitted without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion less than probable cause-is not meant to discover evidence of crime, but must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others. The question presented today is whether police officers may seize nonthreatening contraband detected during a protective patdown search of the sort permitted by Terry.

Next

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

minnesota v dickerson case brief

The court thus appeared to adopt a categorical rule barring the seizure of any contraband detected by an officer through the sense of touch during a patdown search for weapons. This is suggested, in particular, by the so-called night-walker statutes, and their common-law antecedents. Just image, how much could you read and study and improve yourself if you gave up social media? However, the Supreme Court clarified that when police feel contraband through clothing and can tell the identity of the contraband through the sense of touch, they are permitted to go inside clothing to seize the contraband. Codes after Republican Party of Minnesota v. That doctrine--which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it--has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search. Before trial, he moved to have the cocaine evidence excluded, arguing that the search was conducted in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Next