This is suggested, in particular, by the so-called night-walker statutes, and their common-law antecedents. Long, , 1049, and 1052, n. There is no English authority. While it may seem that the respondent was somehow robbed of his Fourth Amendment rights, he was violating the rule of law in a manner that was predominant over this right. Ohio, , 21, 88 S.
The state trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the cocaine, and he was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Respondent has not challenged the finding made by the trial court and affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court that the police were justified under Terry in stopping him and frisking him for weapons. According to information released at the time of the trial, the defendant was walking toward the police officers? The first issue that was raised in the case of Minnesota vs. There obviously had to be some righteousness in their statement because the respondent was holding illegal narcotics when they frisked him. The state, however, did not argue this theory to the trial court. The police officers claimed that they felt a lump in his pocket while doing the previous search and they felt this was enough reason to search him for any other illegal matter he may have had on him. That doctrine-which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it-has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search.
But technological changes were no more discussed in Terry than was the original state of the law. Mter respondent was found guilty of the drug possession charge, the trial court sentenced respondent under a diversionary sentencing statute to a 2-year period of probation. Appellant Timothy Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. The Minnesota Supreme Court had held that the seizure was unlawful because the sense of touch is less immediate and less reliable than the sense of sight, and because the sense of touch is more intrusive than the sense of sight. Based on these facts, the officers stopped Dickerson, and one of them performed a patdown search.
If the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the realization that resort to a neutral magistrate under such circumstances would be impracticable and would do little to promote the Fourth Amendment's objectives. If people were better informed of what rights were protected under the Constitution than law enforcement officers would not be able to get away with most of the things they do. Also there is a question whether or not the search was really in the context of the law. I take it to be a fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication that the terms in the Constitution must be given the meaning ascribed to them at the time of their ratification. As allowed by the diversionary scheme, no judgment of conviction was entered and, upon respondent's successful completion of probation, the original charges were dismissed.
You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information. The police may seize nonthreatening contraband detected through the sense of touch during a protective patdown search of the sort permitted by Terry, so long as the search stays within the bounds marked by Terry. One of the officers performed the Terry v. We read Terry and Sibron as limiting pat searches to a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of the person's clothing until and unless the officer discovers specific and articulable facts reasonably supporting the suspicion that the defendant is armed and dangerous. He testified he searched Dickerson because other weapons had been seized from people at the Morgan Avenue apartments. East, Pleas of the Crown, ch. First, Terry itself demonstrates that the sense of touch is capable of revealing the nature of an object with sufficient reliability to support a seizure.
S 321 1987 Illinois vs. And though I do not favor the mode of analysis in Terry, I cannot say that its result was wrong. Minnesota police spotted Dickerson defendant leaving a known crack house. Detective McFadden noticed that the two men were staring into a store window for a suspicious period of time. Rather, he determined that it was contraband only after he squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket's contents. Dalton, The Country Justice, ch. B We have already held that police officers, at least under certain circumstances, may seize contraband detected during the lawful execution of a Terry search.
Freeman argued the cause for petitioner. Rather, he determined that it was contraband only after he squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket's contents. This was affirmed on June 7, 1993. That doctrine-which permits police to seize an object without a warrant if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it-has an obvious application by analogy to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search. 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.
These discrepancies within the system are very common and we need to educate the public and help them to understand so that they do not get stuck in such a situation and then trials like these will not be needed. Rather, the officer determined that the item was contraband only after conducting a further search, one not authorized by Terry or by any other exception to the warrant requirement. As the State Supreme Court read the record, the officer conducting the search ascertained that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband only after probing and investigating what he certainly knew was not a weapon. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Also that they had the right to follow and investigate him because they had reasonable suspicion that there were illegal substances on his being. Thus, the dispositive question before this Court is whether the officer who conducted the search was acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband.
Consequently, the trial court erred in concluding Rose's seizure of the cocaine was constitutional. Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance. California, , 136-137 1990 ; Texas v. The Minnesota Court, in using the decision made in Terry vs. However, this was negated because the officers were justified from the under Terry v. After finding the gun in Minnesota vs. At oral argument, the state admitted it failed to present the search incident to arrest theory to the trial court.