On the evening of November 9, 1989, the defendant known as Timothy Dickerson was charged with possession of crack cocaine. Two Minneapolis police officers were patrolling an area on the city’s north side at about 8:15 p.m. The defendant was seen in an area notorious for being known as a crack house. Upon spotting the marked squad car and making eye contact with one of the officers the defendant begins to walk in the opposite direction. The officers stopped the defendant to further investigate due to Timothy Dickerson had just left a building known for cocaine traffic. Once the officer pulled the squad car into the alley and ordered respondent to a stop and submit to a pat down search. The search revealed no weapon however, the…show more content… the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”
” The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” The court appeared to adopt a categorical rule barring the seizure of any contraband detected by an officer through the sense of touch during a pat down search. The court further noted that, even if it recognized such a "plain-feel" exception, the search in this case would not qualify because it went far beyond what is permissible under Terry. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers could assume that an object was contraband through touch. The Court also reasoned that the tactile detection of contraband during a lawful pat-down search does not constitute any further invasion of privacy, therefore warrantless seizure was permissible. The Court also concluded that the police officer frisking Dickerson stepped
