Minnesota V. Timothy Dickerson Case Summary
In Minnesota vs. Timothy Dickerson, two police officers parked in an unmarked car, outside of an apartment building known for trafficking contraband substances, did willfully and knowingly stop and frisk respondent due to suspicious and evasive behavior, exiting the twelve-unit apartment building. The officers felt that upon his exit and approach towards patrol car, and eye contact with one of the officers, he turned and proceeded into a side alley. Officers then pursued respondent feeling his suspicious and evasive behavior was probable of being criminal in nature. They pulled their car into the alley and immediately stopped and searched the defendants outer clothing finding no weapons. During the cursory search one officer testified that he had felt a cellophane bag containing crack cocaine later when weighed a total of 1/5th of a gram was found. The officers claimed it within their scope to search and seize what the officer suspected to be drugs inside the defendants clothing.
…show more content…
The officers were within their scope of duties to initially stop Dickerson in this case due to his suspicious and evasive behavior as he exited the apartment building and saw the officer. To pursue and check him for weapons because of potential criminal involvement was not outside the scope of their duties due to the criminal history of this building. However, it was reaching outside of their scope to make assumptions as to what contraband was on the respondent as well as pulling it out of his pocket, as it was not in plain view and was not as easily accessible to the eyes as it should have been. The constitution of Minnesota article 1, section 10 prohibits any unreasonable search or seizures. This statute coincides with 4th Amendment of the U.S.
The officers were within their scope of duties to initially stop Dickerson in this case due to his suspicious and evasive behavior as he exited the apartment building and saw the officer. To pursue and check him for weapons because of potential criminal involvement was not outside the scope of their duties due to the criminal history of this building. However, it was reaching outside of their scope to make assumptions as to what contraband was on the respondent as well as pulling it out of his pocket, as it was not in plain view and was not as easily accessible to the eyes as it should have been. The constitution of Minnesota article 1, section 10 prohibits any unreasonable search or seizures. This statute coincides with 4th Amendment of the U.S.