Русские видео

Сейчас в тренде

Иностранные видео




Если кнопки скачивания не загрузились НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса savevideohd.ru



Minnesota v. Dickerson Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Minnesota v. Dickerson | 508 U.S. 366 (1993) In Terry versus Ohio , the United States Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Known as a Terry stop, the police also may conduct a patdown search of the person for weapons. In Minnesota versus Dickerson, the Supreme Court considered when the police may seize contraband found during a patdown search. On November 9th,1989, two Minneapolis police officers saw Timothy Dickerson leave a known crack house and start walking toward them. When Dickerson spotted the police car he immediately turned and walked in the opposite direction. Dickerson’s actions raised suspicion, so the officers followed Dickerson into an alley. There they stopped Dickerson and one of the officers conducted a patdown search. The officer found no weapons but did feel a lump in Dickerson’s front pocket. The officer felt the object and then, believing it to be crack cocaine, pulled a plastic bag from Dickerson’s pocket. The officer’s suspicion proved correct. Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At trial, Dickerson moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion and ruled that discovery of the cocaine during a Terry search was analogous to the plain-view doctrine, which allows the police to seize contraband in plain view during a lawful search. Dickerson appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and rejected the trial court’s application of a plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed and noted that the officer discovered the cocaine only after he continued to investigate an item he knew wasn’t a weapon. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minneso... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minneso... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Comments