Citation network
Minnesota Vs. Dickerson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 366 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Minnesota V. DickersonSearch
-
In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that both the stop and the frisk of respondent were valid under Terry v. OhioSearch
-
suspect is armed, it 367 is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed. Sibron v. NewSearch
-
York, 392 U. S. 40 , 65-66. pp. 372-373. (b) In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons. Cf., e. g., Illinois v. AndreasSearch
-
would be impracticable and would do little to promote the Fourth Amendment's objectives. Cf., e. g., Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
moved to suppress the cocaine. The trial court first concluded that the officers were justified under Terry v. OhioSearch
-
corollary to the plain-view doctrine. See United States v. ColemanSearch
-
United States v. SalazarSearch
-
United States v. BuchannonSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. NormanSearch
-
People v. ChaversSearch
-
Dickerson v. StateSearch
-
State v. GuySearch
-
Some state courts, however, like the Minnesota court in this case, have rejected such a corollary. See People v. DiazSearch
-
State v. CollinsSearch
-
People v. McCartySearch
-
State v. RhodesSearch
-
State v. BroadnaxSearch
-
cf. Commonwealth v. MarconiSearch
-
II A The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Thompson v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 17 , 19-20 (1984) (per curiam) (quoting Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. PlaceSearch
-
precludes a finding of mootness. Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
see also Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
defendant have 'future difficulties with the law.''' State v. GoodrichSearch
-
in calculating a defendant's criminal history category in the event of a subsequent federal conviction. United States v. FrankSearch
-
collateral legal consequences and that, therefore, a live controversy remains. 373 recognized in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
see also Adams v. WilliamsSearch
-
see also Michigan v. LongSearch
-
determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed. Sibron v. NewSearch
-
certain circumstances, may seize contraband detected during the lawful execution of a Terry search. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
see also United States v. HensleySearch
-
and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant. See Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Texas v. BrownSearch
-
Horton, supra, at 136-the plain-view doctrine cannot justify its seizure. Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
or at least no search independent of the initial intrusion that gave the officers their vantage point. See Illinois v. AndreasSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 466 (1971) (opinion of Stewart, J.). 4 We also note that this Court's opinion in Ybarra v. IllinoisSearch
-
weapons. The seizure of an item whose identity is already known occasions no further invasion of privacy. See Soldal v. CookSearch
-
Terry expressly refused to authorize, see id., at 26, and that we have condemned in subsequent cases. See Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Syllabus Minnesota V. DickersonSearch
-
Terry v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial