Minnesota v. Dickerson is associated with which doctrine?

• A. The plain view doctrine
• B. The plain feel doctrine
• C. The inevitable discovery doctrine
• D. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

Answer: (B)

In a stop-and-frisk, anything discovered by touch must be immediately identifiable as contraband to be admissible. Minnesota v. Dickerson holds that the plain feel doctrine applies only when the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent through the sense of touch, without the officer having to squeeze, move, or manipulate the object to identify it. If the officer must manipulate the item to determine what it is, that identification is beyond the scope of the frisk and the seized evidence is typically suppressed.

This differs from plain view, where an item is seized simply because it is seen during a lawful observation, not touched or manipulated. It’s also distinct from the inevitable discovery doctrine (evidence would have been found anyway) and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (evidence derived from illegal police conduct).