Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentplain feel doctrineTerry stoppat downFourth AmendmentTerry friskplain feel

Facts

Police officers patrolling a Minneapolis area known to them for cocaine traffic saw respondent leave a building the officer considered a notorious crack house, abruptly change direction after seeing the police, and enter an alley. The officers stopped him and conducted a patdown search that revealed no weapons. During the frisk, an officer felt a small lump in respondent's jacket pocket, examined it with his fingers, concluded it felt like crack cocaine in cellophane, and removed a plastic bag containing crack cocaine. The state courts upheld the stop and frisk under Terry but concluded the seizure of the cocaine exceeded Terry's limits.

Issue

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to seize nonthreatening contraband detected through an officer's sense of touch during a lawful Terry patdown search. If so, whether the seizure here was valid when the officer identified the item as contraband only after further manipulation.

Rule

During a lawful Terry frisk, an officer may seize contraband detected through touch if the officer lawfully pats down the suspect's outer clothing and the object's contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, giving probable cause to believe it is contraband. But if the officer must continue exploring, squeezing, sliding, or otherwise manipulating the object after determining it is not a weapon, the search exceeds Terry and the seizure is unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Late at night in Detroit, Officer Lena Ortiz lawfully stops Devin Cole based on reasonable suspicion that he has just cased a convenience store and frisks him because she reasonably believes he may be armed. During the patdown of Devin's coat, she immediately feels a hard, rectangular bundle with a distinctive chalky texture and cornered edges that, based on her training, she instantly recognizes as a tightly wrapped brick of illegal pills rather than a weapon. She removes it and finds contraband.

Is the seizure most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The seizure is constitutional. The majority recognized a plain-feel doctrine analogous to plain view: if the officer is lawfully conducting a Terry frisk and the object's contour or mass makes its incriminating identity immediately apparent, the officer may seize it without a warrant. The key is that probable cause arises from the initial lawful touch, not from further manipulation. Terry does not authorize a general evidentiary search, but it does not require officers to ignore contraband plainly detected while remaining within the frisk's lawful bounds.