HanaFineman

Period
May19,2014
IRAC

Minnesotav.Dickerson

OnNovember9,1989,twopoliceofficerswereonpatrolinamarkedsquadcar.
Oneofthepoliceofficersspottedamanleavinganapartmentbuildingthat,duetoprevious
complaintsofdrugdealsinthebuildingandfromobtainingnumeroussearchwarrantson
thepremises,wasaknowncrackhouse.Theofficerfurtherobservedthatoncetheman
becameawareofthesquadcar,hemadeeyecontactwithoneoftheofficers,stoppedin
histracks,quicklychangeddirectionandbeganwalkingtheoppositeway.Respondent
thenturnedthecorneranddisappearedintoanalleyontheothersideofthebuilding.This
arousedtheofficerssuspicion,leadingthetwoofficerstofollowthemanintothealley,stop
him,andperformapatdownsearch.
Theofficernotedthathedidnotfindanyweaponsintherespondentspockets.
However,hedidnoticeasmalllumpintherespondentsjacket.Theofficerfeltthelumpin
thefrontpocket,examineditwithhisfingers,anddeterminedthatitwasasmallbagof
crackcocaine.Hethenreachedintorespondentspocketandpulledoutthebag,whichdid
infactcontainonefifthofonegramofcrackcocaine.Themanwasarrestedandcharged
withpossessionofacontrolledsubstance.Thequestioninthiscaseismaypoliceofficers
seizenonthreateningcontrabanddetectedduringaprotectivepatdownsearch?
TheCAv.Ciraolocasein1986clearlyestablishedtherulethatifonehas
standing,aphysicalbarrierofprivacythatthepublicmaydeemasreasonable,theyare
protectedbytheFourthAmendmentandastateofficialmustobtainawarranttoconduct
anysearchofapersonortheirproperty.Inadditiontothisrule,theTerryv.Ohiocase
establishedthatpoliceareallowedtostopandfriskanindividualiftheyhavereasonable
andarticulableevidencethatcriminalactivityisafoot.Withtheknowledgeofthesetwo
rules,didrespondenthavestanding,anddidtheofficerhavereasonableandarticulable
evidencethatrespondentwasparticipatingincriminalactivity?
TheFourthAmendmentgivescitizenstherighttobesecureintheirpersons,
houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.Inthiscase,
respondentsprivacyfallsunderbeingsecureinhispersons,andhisjacketpocketcreated
standingbetweenhimandtheofficer.AsacitizenoftheUnitedStates,respondentcould
reasonablyexpectprivacybetweentheitemscarriedinhispocketsandanofficer,whoisa
workerofthestate.Therefore,respondenthadprotectionundertheFourthAmendment
fromhispocketsbeingsearchedbytheofficer.
Theofficerdidhavereasonablesuspicionthatrespondentwasparticipatingin
criminalactivitybecausehewasseenleavingabuildingthatwasclearlyknownasacrack
houseandduetohisextremelyevasiveactionsinresponsetoseeingthecopcar.
However,theofficerconductedaseizurethatwasunlawful.Thefactsofthecasestatethat
thepoliceofficercontinuedtosqueezeandmanipulatethecontentsofapockethealready
knewdidnotcontainaweapon.Thepolicedepartmentofficialhandbookstatesthatapat
downisnotasearchforevidenceorcontraband,and,absentconsent,officersshallnot
useapatdownasapretexttoconductanevidentiarysearch.Thatmeansthepolicecan
legallyengageinastopandfriskonlytosearchforandremoveanyweaponsonthe
suspectthatcouldharmtheofficer.Theofficerwhoconductedapatdownonrespondent
brokethisruleandcontinuedtoprobeandinvestigateevenaftersatisfyinghimselfbynot
findinganyweaponsonrespondent.
Apatdownispurelyusedforthesafetyofothersandisexplicitlynotasearchfor
evidenceofcontraband.Duetothisviolation,thecontrabandtheofficerfoundcannotbe
usedasevidenceagainstrespondentandrespondentisrightfullyprotectedunderthe
FourthAmendment.