Minnesota v. Dickerson, Essay Example

A police officer had patted down Dickerson and upon patting him down and found a small amount of crack cocaine inside his jacket pocket. The officer felt that he was within his rights because upon patting down the suspects outer clothing the mass was obvious and it was immediately apparent that the suspect had drugs in his possession. Therefore there was no invasion of his privacy because the officer was authorized to search for weapons. The pat down allowed the officer to find the contraband, and the warrantless seizure was justified in the same capacity of the plain-view context. Dickerson filed a motion to suppress the cocaine charges, but the courts ruled that the officer was justified to confiscate the cocaine when it was found during the pat down. The law supported the fact that the officer was justified to pat down the suspect to ensure he was not armed.

The question was if the Fourth Amendment rights of the Constitution of the United States was violated through the seizure of contraband during the pat down of the based upon the officer’s sense of touch. The court ruled that the plain-view doctrine did not violate Dickerson’s Fourth Amendment rights. Dickerson appealed and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. They determined that the officers were not within their legal rights to seize the cocaine. The court felt that the plain feel exception was not a real argument in this case. The Minnesota State Supreme Court supported the Court of Appeals and that the officer’s seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the plain-view doctrine did not include the sense of touch as the officer believed. The pat search that found the drugs went beyond what is legally allowed and supported by the law.