1 / 0

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Minnesota v. Dickerson. Lucas Whirley. Parties Involved. Minnesota Dickerson Minnesota was the plaintiff and was charging… Dickerson, the defendant in the case. Case Summary. Timothy Dickerson was in well known drug area. Police were also nearby.

adia
Download Presentation

Minnesota v. Dickerson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota v. Dickerson

    Lucas Whirley
  2. Parties Involved Minnesota Dickerson Minnesota was the plaintiff and was charging… Dickerson, the defendant in the case.
  3. Case Summary Timothy Dickerson was in well known drug area. Police were also nearby. With previous knowledge of the area, the police assumed Dickerson was up to no good. Proceeded to search Dickerson. Found small lump in jacket. Didn’t know what the lump was. Resulted in further investigating.
  4. Case Summary (cont.) Police was searching Dickerson for weapons, not for drugs. Officer inspected the lump. Lump was discovered to be 1/5 of a gram of crack cocaine. Dickerson was arrested soon thereafter.
  5. Case Goes To Court Case was first heard in the Hennepin County District Court. Court had to look at Terry v. Ohio to determine whether the search was legal. Also had to look at the Fourth Amendment. Dickerson was declared guilty
  6. Case Moves On Case appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals One reason was whether or not officer went beyond constitutional limits when seizing the cocaine. This was dependent on probable cause.
  7. Case Moves On (cont.) Court of Appeals ruled that officer had right to pat down because of Terry v. Ohio. Dickerson could have been involved in criminal activity. However, court said that officer crossed the line when taking the cocaine; plain feel. Case would make final stop at Supreme Court.
  8. Supreme Court Decision Said seizure of contraband in plain sight was allowable. Officer had gone beyond the laws allowed by Terry v. Ohio. Did not have the right because he did not know it was cocaine without investigating further. Unanimous vote to affirm. Justice White wrote majority decision in which he said that they must obtain warrant unless conditions are present.
  9. Impacts of Case Ruling of this case made clear exactly how searches are done. Made exceptions clear for when warrants are required and when they are not. Police can only seize contraband by touch if they can determine it is illegal without investigating further.
  10. Works Cited “Fourth Amendment,” Cornell University Law School, n.d.; available from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment.; Internet; accessed 17 November 2013 "MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d.; available from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2019.; Internet; accessed16 November 2013. “Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993),” Cornell University Law School, 1993; available from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2019.ZO.html.; Internet; accessed 16 November 2013. “Minnesota v. Dickerson: Impact,” American Law and Legal Information,n.d.; available from http://law.jrank.org/pages/24147/Minnesota-v-Dickerson-Impact.html.; Internet; accessed 17 November 2013 “Plain View Dotrine,” The Free Dictionary: Legal Dictionary, n.d.; available from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain+View+Doctrine.; Internet; accessed 16 November 2013
More Related