My supreme court case is the case of Minnesota vs Dickerson.
On the night of November 9th, 1989, two officers of the Minneapolis police department were patrolling the streets of north Minneapolis. At around 8:15 p.m, the two officers spotted a male coming out of a 12 unit apartment complex notoriously known for crack/cocaine sales and trafficking. Considering the suspect’s suspicious behavior, by purposely evading the police and turning around and going the opposite direction, into an alley behind the complex, after he had made eye contact with the officers, and the previous complaints of drug sales in the building’s hallways, the two officers decided to stop the respondent, and continue investigation. The two officers, parked behind the respondent …show more content…
The respondent was then arrested and was charged in Hennepin County District Court with possession of a controlled substance. During trial later, the officer stated, "[A]s I pat searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane." Tr. 9 (Feb. 20, 1990). Before trial, the respondent had moved to suppress the crack cocaine. The court first said that the two officers, were justified under Terry vs Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 )1968), in stopping a suspect to investigate whether or not they are involved in criminal activity. The court further found that the officers were justified to frisk the respondent to ensure that he was not carrying a weapon. The court determined that the officers’ search, did not violate the Fourth Amendment right. The suspect’s suppression motion failed, therefore he proceeded to trial and was found guilty. However, after the suspect was found guilty, the Minnesota court’s appeal reversed. The court agreed that the officers had the right under Terry to stop and search the respondent for weapons because the officers had reasonable belief that the man was involved in