Minnesota v. Dickerson
E522186
Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Minnesota v. Dickerson canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5478390 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Minnesota v. Dickerson Context triple: [Terry v. Ohio, subsequentCitationBy, Minnesota v. Dickerson]
-
A.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota is a landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied First Amendment free press protections to the states and established a strong presumption against prior restraint by government.
-
D.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
E.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Minnesota v. Dickerson Target entity description: Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.
-
A.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota is a landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied First Amendment free press protections to the states and established a strong presumption against prior restraint by government.
-
D.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
E.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
police powers and investigative stops ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1992-12-09 ⓘ |
| citation | 508 U.S. 366 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1993-06-07 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous in judgment ⓘ |
| doctrineRecognized | plain feel doctrine ⓘ |
| holding |
The Fourth Amendment does not permit an officer to manipulate an object in a suspect’s pocket during a pat-down to determine whether it is contraband
ⓘ
The Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through an officer’s sense of touch during a lawful Terry frisk if its incriminating character is immediately apparent ⓘ |
| impact |
established plain feel as an analogue to the plain view doctrine
ⓘ
limited police authority to manipulate objects during frisk ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
ⓘ
linked to:
William H. Rehnquist
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Antonin Scalia ⓘ
linked to:
Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ
linked to:
Clarence Thomas
Justice David H. Souter ⓘ
linked to:
David H. Souter
Justice Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ
linked to:
John Paul Stevens
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
|
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment
ⓘ
Terry stop ⓘ plain feel doctrine ⓘ stop and frisk ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Byron R. White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
|
| originatingCourt | Minnesota state courts ⓘ |
| petitioner |
State of Minnesota
ⓘ
linked to:
Minnesota
|
| relatedCase |
Arizona v. Hicks
ⓘ
Terry v. Ohio ⓘ |
| remedy | suppression of evidence obtained through unlawful manipulation during frisk ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Timothy Dickerson ⓘ |
| ruleOfLaw | Evidence discovered during a frisk is admissible only if the officer’s initial touch lawfully reveals its incriminating nature without further probing ⓘ |
| standardClarified | scope of pat-down searches under Terry v. Ohio ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal law
ⓘ
search and seizure ⓘ |
| volume | 508 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1993 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Minnesota v. Dickerson Description of subject: Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.