Kimberly Ray
September 15, 2013
Case Citation: Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
JUDICIAL HISTORY:
The trial Court denied Respondent’s motion to suppress evidence which led to his conviction.
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed finding that the evidence should have been
suppressed. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to determine whether suppression
was appropriate.
FACTS:
Two police officers were patrolling the city when they spotted Respondent leaving a building
that was considered a crack house. Upon suspicion, the officers stopped the Respondent and
ordered the Respondent to submit to a protective patdown search. Although the search revealed
no weapons, the officers seized one gram of crack cocaine from Respondent’s coat pocket. As a
result, the cocaine that was seized led to Respondents arrest. In response, Respondent filed a
motion to suppress the evidence. The motion was denied and the Respondent was convicted.
ISSUE:
Was it a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to seize contraband from the
Respondent during the course of a protective patdown search and can the contraband be admitted
into evidence?
RULE:
An officer can perform a protective patdown search for weapons that are potentially harmful
to the officer or the public without a warrant, but the search is limited to that objective.
ANALYSIS:
In determining whether it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to seize
contraband from Respondent during the course of a protective patdown search, the Supreme
Court reviewed Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). In Terry,
supra, the Court previously determined that a protective patdown search without a search warrant
was permitted. However, if the protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if
the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry, supra.
In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the protective patdown search of the
Respondent revealed no weapons. Therefore, the continued search into Respondent’s coat
pocket went beyond what was necessary to determine whether he was armed. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court determined that the search was invalid and was in violation of the Fourth
Amendment
CONCLUSION:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to seize
contraband in the course of a protective patdown search where the search exceeded the scope
necessary to detect weapons. Accordingly, the Court found that the seizure of the cocaine should
have been suppressed. The judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court was affirmed.
2