| 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.[1]
Associate Justice Byron White gave the opinion of the court.