FREE ESSAY ON MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON

MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Jurisdiction _____________________________________ 1
Statement of the Case ____________________________ 1-7
Question Presented _______________________________ 7-8
Summary of Argument ______________________________ 8-11
Analysis of Issue 1 ______________________________ 11-12
Analysis of Issue 2 ______________________________ 13-14
Conclusion _______________________________________ 14-15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Arizona vs. Hicks, 480 U.S 321 (1987)
Certiorari, 506 U.S. 814 (1992)
Illinois vs. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983)
Mapp vs. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Michigan vs. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 n. 16 (1983)
Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Texas vs. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)
U.S. Constitution
Fourth Amendment
Plain Touch Doctrine
JURISDICTION:
The Minnesota Supreme Court found the respondent Timothy Dickerson guilty of the
possession of cocaine. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme
Court of the United States of America granted certiorari and found that contraband
detected through touch shall be admissible in court. This was affirmed on June 7, 1993.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
On the night of November 9, 1989 two Minneapolis law enforcement officers were patrolling
an area on the city's north side in a marked squad car. At 8:15 p.m. one of the
patrolling police officers noticed the defendant, Timothy Dickerson, leaving a
twelve-unit apartment building on Morgan Avenue North. This particular officer had often
responded to calls from this building in the past regarding different drug violations.
The building had notoriously been referred to as a "crack house" and this is partially
why the officers assumed there were illegal actions occurring when the respondent was
leaving the location. 
According to information released at the time of the trial, the defendant was walking
toward the police officers' vehicle when he suddenly changed direction and began running
away from where they were parked. The officers began to watch him suspiciously and
observed his actions while he walked down a quiet and empty alley. The officers suspected
that the defendant was involved in some type of drug trafficking and continued to follow
him and investigate him further. 
Before the trial the defendant moved to suppress the cocaine that was found by the
officers that night. However, this was negated because the officers were justified from
the case law under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). This case had very similar issues to
that of the one in question dealing with past happenings with the law enforcement
officers. In this situation a police detective named McFadden was patrolling the
Cleveland area when he noticed two strangers on a street corner, one of which was the
petitioner. Detective McFadden noticed that the two men were staring into a store window
for a suspicious period of time. Even more suspicious was the fact that later that
evening the two men met with a thirdman that also seemed to appear quite suspicious.
Detective McFadden claimed that he felt that the three men were planning on robbing a
nearby convenience store. The detective then decided to approach the three men and to
explain who he was. The detective then went on to search the petitioner and found a
pistol on the outside of his clothing but was somehow unable to remove it. Detective
McFadden brought all three men down to the police station. The petitioner was charged
with concealment of a weapon and the defense moved to suppress the weapon. 
The proceedings that followed also related to the search and seizure issues presented in
Minnesota vs. Dickerson. Also, in Terry vs. Ohio, the court denied the motion to suppress
the weapon and allowed it to be used as evidence in the trial. Since the petitioner and
the other two men were acting in such a conspicuous manner, it seemed understandable as
to why the detective would be question their behavior. The petitioner and one of his
friends were found guilty and the appellate court affirmed the original ruling. The
issues that pertain to Minnesota vs. Dickerson involve the Fourth Amendment rights
against unreasonable search and seizure. This amendment was put in effect with the
purpose of protecting people against unreasonable behavior by a law enforcement officer
who has the power to restrain someone. It is used as a restriction so that there is some
guideline to where the power of the police ends and the rights of a citizen begin. The
defendant argued that his 
rights should have been protected over that of the store the detective thought to be in
danger. Nevertheless, the issue of Detective McFadden's behavior is not the issue that is
at question. Rather, we should place more emphasis on the evidence that was suppressed at
the time of the frisk. This case discussed similar issues that pertained to Minnesota vs.
Dickerson and it is necessary to realize its importance and relevance to the
circumstances at hand. 
Mapp vs. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) is another case that can be referenced in making a
decision for the present case. There was a similar situation involved in which an illegal
or supposed illegal search was done in a woman's house. The police officers entered the
woman's house and showed her a piece of paper that they claimed to be a warrant. The
officers claimed the woman took the warrant in her hand yet no warrant could be presented
at the time of trial. The officers found lewd apparel about her home such as movies,
magazines, etc., and they convicted her. The case was appealed and the ruling reversed
because the officers did not have reasonable ground to enter her home nor had they any
proof that a warrant ever even existed. 
After finding the gun in Minnesota vs. Dickerson, the law enforcement officers went on to
question the defendant and order him to a pat-down search to check for anything else
illegal that may have been on him. The police officers claimed that they felt a lump in
his pocket while doing the previous search and they felt this was enough reason to search
him for any other illegal matter he may have had on him. The officer continued to check
him and found a small plastic bag containing one fifth of one gram of crack cocaine. The
officers then arrested the defendant and charged him in the Hennepin County District
Court with possession of a controlled substance. The court ruled that the officers had
reasonable ground for searching the respondent. Under the 'Plain-view Doctrine' the
officers can render a warrantless seizure of any types of contraband that they may find
in plain view during a lawful search for other items. The court deemed the officers to be
within their boundaries and found that the seizure of the contraband was not in violation
of his Fourth Amendment rights.It is very difficult to know whether the officers really
did have any reasonable cause to believe there an actual illegal activity was going to
occur or whether that was just the excuse they used in order to search the respondent.
Also there is a question whether or not the search was really in the context of the law.
The issue regarding the 'plain-view doctrine' was brought up at the first trial and it
was decided that plain feel is the same as plain sight. Therefore, it was shown that the
officers were correct in their decision to continue searching the respondent and he was
later found to be guilty of the possession.
The decision was reversed at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Minnesota Court, in
using the decision made in Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). agreed with the trial court
in that it found that the officers were lawful in following the respondent and proceeding
to search him. Also that they had the right to follow and investigate him because they
had reasonable suspicion that there were illegal substances on his being. However, the
court ruled that the law enforcement officers may have stepped over their boundaries in
the way they went about seizing the bag of cocaine they found on the respondent.The
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the original decision and concluded that the stop and
frisk were validunder Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) but found that the seizure of the
cocaine was unconstitutional. The court expressly refused: 
"to extend the plain view doctrine to the 
sense of touch on the grounds that the sense 
of touch is inherently less immediate and 
less reliable than the sense of sight and 
that the sense of touch is far more intrusive
into the personal privacy that is at the 
core of the Fourth Amendment" 481 N.W.2d 840,
845 (1992)."
The court then stated that there will be a categorical rule barring the seizure of any
contraband or substance detected by any law enforcement officer or official through the
sense of touch during a patdown search for weapons.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether or not the Fourth Amendment issues raised during this case pertain to illegal
search and seizure and whether they were violated in this instance. Whether their was a
basis or legal value in following the respondent and searching him for contraband or
weapons?. 
BRIEF ANSWER:
The building the respondent was leaving had a reputation for being repeatedly busted for
drug possession. However, this did not give the officers the right to follow him and pull
him over in order to search him. The 'plain-view doctrine' allows law enforcement
officers to investigate and search someone they feel may be hiding something illegal. The
officers give comments within the case and proceedings that they clearly felt something
was hidden within the respondent's clothing, this shows that they had the legal right to
remove the item. 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
While it may seem that the respondent was somehow robbed of his Fourth Amendment rights,
he was violating the rule of law in a manner that was predominant over this right. It
would be unrightful to assume that the law enforcement officers had no legitimate basis
for searching the respondent. There obviously had to be some righteousness in their
statement because the respondent was holding illegal narcotics when they frisked him.
However, from the other point of view, the respondent did not appear to give the officers
any reason to believe that they were planning an illegal activity within their 
plain-view. The officers claim to have felt something in the respondent's pocket but it
seems that the respondent did not give them enough reason to follow him in the first
place.
The officers appear to be negligent in their actions in that they did not use their
judgement correctly in deciding whether what they were doing was justified under the
Fourth Amendment. The officers pulled over the respondent under false pretenses because
they had no proof and no chance to see that they could have had contraband on them prior
to pulling them over. There were obvious factors that made them the officers think the
respondent was hiding something, however, they are not factors that make their response
to the situation constitutional. Officers have the right to frisk, search and seize
someone that has plainly shown that they have committed some illegal act. Otherwise, any
other action followed for any other reason must be deemed unconstitutional. 
It is important to realize the importance of the Constitution and what falls under it.
These rules and standards were made to help protect the rights of the people so that
there are some restrictions as to what rights we have against law enforcement. Both
American citizens and American law enforcement officers need to pay attention to the
significance of this document and need to learn and understand what exactly they protect
people from. If people were better informed of what rights were protected under the
Constitution than law enforcement officers would not be able to get away with most of the
things they do. There are loopholes that officers know and use to their advantage that
citizens would not know about unless they were involved in a situation. These
discrepancies within the system are very common and we need to educate the public and
help them to understand so that they do not get stuck in such a situation and then trials
like these will not be needed.
I argue that although the officers were correct in assuming that the respondent was
committing some illegal offense, there was no evidence in plain view that gave them the
correct admissibility to search the respondent. The officers may have had a feeling that
something illegal was going on but a feeling is not a legal basis for searching someone.
Other cases have shown that the Fourth Amendment has strict guidelines and it is not
sufficient to have a feeling about someone and pursue that suspicion. I agree with the
decision of the Supreme Court that the stop and frisk of the respondent was valid under
Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) but the seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional on
the basis that there is no 'plain feel exception'. 
The respondent might have been guilty with the possession of illegal cocaine,
nonetheless, certain other illegal actions took place on the side of law enforcement. The
seizing of the narcotics was not done properly to the extent of the rules of law. It is
unfair to infer that the officers were accurately obtaining the cocaine through
legitimate and legal means because they did not use sight to confiscate the drugs but a
sense of touch that is presumed to be more imprecise.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUE 1:
The first issue that was raised in the case of Minnesota vs. Dickerson was whether or not
the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was violated during the frisk of the
respondent Timothy Dickerson. Although the police officers had a suspicion about the
actions that took place after the respondent left the building priorly known for the
illegal activity taken place there, it still seems quite difficult to decide whether the
officers had the right to follow the respondent into the alley and search his belongings.
The respondent did raise the officers' curiosities, however, it is still unknown whether
their decision violated the liberties of the respondent. 
Other cases have relevance to the Fourth Amendment rights granted to citizens and it is
necessary to comprehend that discrepancies continue to take place within the justice
system with regard to search and seizure. The frisking of an individual is a serious
action and must be contemplated by law enforcement before it occurs. The reasons behind
search and seizure must be legit and stated within the Constitution or else the evidence
obtained can be declared unadmissible within a court of law regardless of what it was
that may have been found.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUE 2
The second important issue regarding the respondent's legal rights is whether the
officers were within the rules of law when they decided that feeling a lump in the
respondents pocket was equivalent to that of seeing a lump in his pocket. In my opinion,
the court should have allowed the submission of the cocaine because it was found, the
officers had logical reasons to suspect the respondent, he felt something in his pocket
and 'saw' him leave a building that has been consistently disrupted for illegal drugs.
Therefore, the respondent was clearly guilty of possession of the cocaine and should have
been convicted on all counts. There is no need to be so incredibly specific within this
instance because what they saw with the respondent's actions led them to feel and notice
narcotics within his clothing. 
It might be slightly more difficult to believe that the feeling of an object through
someone's clothing is not as accurate as seeing the object, however, that is not always
true. It is unfair to assume that even if they saw a bulge in his pants' pocket, that it
could have simply been a packet of tissues or something else that looked suspicious. When
is the line drawn concerning the reasons to 
embarrass and frisk someone against their will? The officers had a definite feel by their
touch that something was being hidden and they wanted to find what it was because they
had seen him act in a very sly and somewhat deviant way through his actions and where
they witnessed him leave.
The main issue is that 'plain-view' differs from plain sight showing that the officers
were unlawful in their actions when they frisked the respondent. It is now differentiated
simply because of this specific case even though other cases have taken place before this
one, they were under different circumstances and separate rules of law were the main
concern in the court. 
CONCLUSION:
There are many reasons why someone is pulled over due to suspicions by police officers
that arise by what they witness before their very eyes. However, there are rules and laws
that need to be followed because law enforcement officers cannot simply take matters into
their own hands and decide someone's guilt or innocence. The realization that the
officers stepped beyond their boundaries is important when deciding whether the
respondent should have 
been guilty under all the rules of law that currently
Kanthal 15 
exist. 
Other previous cases have relevance to Minnesota vs. Dickerson because they have set some
of the standards that are presented within the Fourth Amendment and 'plain-view'
doctrine. The Fourth Amendment has explicit rules that all supervene and that may not be
exceptions unless there is dire need for them. The exclusionary rule is a different issue
altogether and it has separate aspects pertaining to exceptions within certain rules of
law. Nevertheless, this specific case has interesting issues concerning legal standards
dealing with police or law enforcement misconduct with search and seizure under the
Fourth Amendment. Many cases have dealt with these circumstances and issues and there is
no doubt that more will approach the future. 
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charrow, Veda R.,Erhardt, Myra K., Charrow, Robert P., 
"Clear and Effective Legal Writing, Second Edition", 
Little, Brown and Company, 1995.
"Criminal Law and Its Processes, Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition", Little Brown and
Company, 1995.
Findlaw.com. Minnesota vs. Dickerson, No. 91-2019.
Http://www.ccrkba.org/ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/wais/data_files/h 
ermes/ascii-orig/91-2019A.ZO