Nick Ketchum MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON

BACKGROUND Two Minneapolis police officers were patrolling a known drug area. They see Timothy Dickerson leave the drug den, walk towards the squad car, spot the officers, then abruptly turn and walk the other way. The officers follow him to an alleyway, stop and question him, then proceed to do a protective patdown on his body for contraband. The officer feels a lump in Dickerson’s pocket, pushes it out, and discovers that it is one fifth of one gram of crack cocaine.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Hennepin County District Court

PARTIES INVOLVED Minnesota Timothy Dickerson

QUESTION PRESENTED BY CASE When a police officer detects contraband…during a protective patdown search, does the Fourth Amendment permit its seizure and subsequent introduction into evidence? Was the police officer who frisked Dickerson adhering to the Fourth Amendment when he formed the belief, through his sense of touch, that the lump…was cocaine?

HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DECISION Decided that the police officers were justified in all that they did

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION Decided that the officers were justified everywhere, except in taking the cocaine into evidence

SUPREME COURT DECISION Unanimous vote for Minnesota 9-0 Sided with Court of Appeals Decided that the officers were justified everywhere, except in taking the cocaine into evidence

HISTORICAL\POLITICAL IMPACT Basis for what defines a protective patdown search and what an officer can and cannot do with

WORKS CITED galleryhip.com