Minnesota v. Dickerson
- Decided
- June 7, 1993
- Docket
- 91-2019
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,669 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that squeezing, sliding and otherwise manipulating the contents of the defendant’s pocket constituted an additional search unrelated to the sole justification of the search for the frisk under Terry — Commonwealth v. Zhahir (2000)
- holding that protective searches must be “strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby” — Hicks v. State (1993)
- holding that police may seize contraband during a lawful patdown if its illicit nature is "immediately apparent" because the seizure is then supported by probable cause — Cole v. State (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this ease, we consider whether the Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer’s sense of touch during a protective patdown search.
I
Cite this
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.