What aspect of search and seizure is addressed by Minnesota v. Dickerson?

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the case specifically addresses the plain feel doctrine, which is an extension of the principles established in Terry v. Ohio regarding stop-and-frisk situations. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that if a police officer, during a lawful stop, conducts a pat-down (stop-and-frisk) and feels an object that is immediately recognizable as contraband without additional manipulations, the officer can seize that contraband. This doctrine asserts that the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is illegal or contraband at the moment of the tactile inspection.

The ruling clarified that in order for the seized contraband to be admissible in court, the officer must be able to identify the object as contraband solely through the sense of touch—a clear indication of their familiarity with the feel of illegal items. This decision is significant in reinforcing the guidelines surrounding searches conducted without a warrant, while upholding the constitutional rights of individuals against unreasonable searches.

This case emphasizes the importance of the immediate recognition of contraband during lawful police encounters, which aligns with the principles of the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.