Minnesota v. Dickerson
Significance, Impact, Nightwalker Statutes, Further Readings
Petitioner
State of Minnesota
Respondent
Timothy Dickerson
Petitioner's Claim
A police officer's patdown search of a person on the street and subsequent seizure of a small object does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
Michael O. Freeman, Beverly J. Wolfe
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Peter W. Gorman
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William H. Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 June 1993
Decision
Police may seize contraband that is nonthreatening and detected through the sense of touch during a limited patdown search for weapons, but the search in Dickerson's case was unlawful because it exceeded the lawful bounds of such a search.
Related Cases
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
Additional topics
- Minnesota v. Olson - Significance, Impact
- Mike Tyson Trial: 1992 - Brutal Attack
- Minnesota v. Dickerson - Further Readings
- Minnesota v. Dickerson - Significance
- Minnesota v. Dickerson - Impact
- Minnesota v. Dickerson - Nightwalker Statutes
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994