# Minnesota v. Dickerson > Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 1993 · 508 U.S. 366 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432825 ## Case - **Full name:** Minnesota v. Dickerson - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 7, 1993 - **Citations:** 508 U.S. 366; 113 S. Ct. 2130; 124 L. Ed. 2d 334; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4018 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rehnquist - **Judges:** White, Scalia, Rehnquist, Black-Mun, Thomas - **Cited by:** 2,384 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by People v. Champion, 452 Mich. 92 (1996). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 3 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432825 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that police officer 9 “overstepped the bounds of the ‘strictly circumscribed’ search for weapons allowed under Terry” 10 when he continued to explore the individual’s pocket after having concluded that it contained no 11 weapon because he felt a small, hard object he t… - stating that “[i]f a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for w… - holding that search of a defendant who was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance exceeded the Terry bounds when the officer determined that a lump in the defendant’s jacket pocket was crack cocaine only after “squeezing, sliding and otherwise manipulat… - explaining that seizure “could not be justified by the plain-view doctrine” where probable cause as to the item’s incriminating nature arises “only as a result of a further search — the moving of the [item seized] — that was not authorized by a search warrant or by any excepti… - holding that where a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, the warrantless seizure of that object would be justified by the same practical considerations that apply in the… ## Opinion text Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Black-mun and Justice Thomas join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion. Unlike the Court, however, I would vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota and remand the case to that court for further proceedings. The Court, correctly in my view, states that “the dispositive question before this Court is whether the officer who conducted the search was acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry [v. Ohio, 892 U. S. 1 (1968),] at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent’s jacket was contraband.” Ante, at 377. The Court then goes on to point out that the state trial court did not make precise findings on this point, but accepts the appellate findings made by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. I believe that these findings, like those of the trial court, are imprecise and not directed expressly to the question of the officer’s probable cause to believe that the lump was contraband. Because the Supreme Court of Minnesota employed a Fourth Amendment analysis which differs significantly from that now adopted by this Court, I would vacate its judgment and remand the ease for further proceedings there in the light of this Court’s opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432825. Public record. Not legal advice.