The event occurred on November 9, 1989, while exiting an apartment building with a history of cocaine trafficking, Timothy Dickerson, a patron walking in the streets, spotted police officers and turned to walk in the opposite direction. Due to this hastiness, the law officials commanded Dickerson to stop, in suspicious of him running around and eventually got to him. On the intent of suspicion, the officer discovered a lump, which he belied was some sort of a leisure drug. Upon further investigation, that suspicious was true. Dickerson was charged with possession of an illegal substance. However, his lawyers argued that there was no valid cause for the officers to conduct this search. Afterall, Dickerson panicked when he saw officials, something that a natural human being is inclined to do when he sees authority. Dickerson pleaded the trial court not to use the possession of cocaine in the court, but was rejected. This case become a supersession to allow officials to lawfully pat down a suspect since no element of invasion of privacy has been violated.
In his defense to appeal his conviction, Dickerson claimed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches, as he pleaded it exceeded the limits of a permissible as outlined in Terry vs Ohio. As evident, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police mat still frisk a patron based on suspicious reasonable search. The search’s purpose is to find weapons, and the officials may seize any items found in any search which is evident.
The court made a very important ruling which became evident in future cases. In essence, the court ruled that a detection of contraband during a lawful patdown is legal, even though it does not require a warrant. Due to this ruling, warrantless seizures became permissible. However, the court also pointed out that the Court also concluded that law officials tackling Dickerson stepped outside the