What did Minnesota v Dickerson confirm about contraband during a lawful search?

The case of Minnesota v. Dickerson established an important legal principle regarding the seizure of contraband during a lawful search, specifically in the context of a "stop and frisk" scenario. The ruling confirmed that law enforcement officers are permitted to seize items that are not weapons if they are "plainly felt" during a patdown search. This means that if an officer is conducting a lawful frisk and they encounter an item that they can immediately identify as contraband—such as illegal drugs—through the sense of touch, they are justified in seizing that item without a warrant.

This principle is grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling balances the need for officer safety during a stop and frisk with the rights of individuals against searches that would otherwise require a warrant. By allowing the seizure of non-weapon contraband that is immediately recognizable during a lawful search, the court aimed to enable law enforcement to act effectively while maintaining constitutional protections.

The other options present misunderstandings of the principles established by the case. For instance, requiring a warrant for all contraband seizures would unnecessarily limit police discretion in urgent situations, while asserting that only weapons can be seized fails to recognize the broader scope defined by the ruling. Similarly, insisting that