Minnesota v. Dickerson
| Minnesota v. Dickerson | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 3, 1993 Decided June 7, 1993 | |
| Full case name | Minnesota v. Dickerson |
| Citations | 508 U.S. 366 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2130; 124 L. Ed. 2d 334; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4018 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | State v. Dickerson, 469 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); affirmed, 481 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1992); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 814 (1992). |
| Holding | |
| The Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer's sense of touch during a protective patdown search. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by unanimous (Parts I and II); Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter (Parts III and IV) |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concur/dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. IV | |
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon. By a 6-to-3 vote, however, the court held that the officer in this case had gone beyond the limits of a lawful patdown search before he could determine that the object was contraband, making the search and the subsequent seizure unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
Associate Justice Byron White gave the opinion of the court.