Which case established the 'plain feel' doctrine for searches?

• A. Terry v. Ohio
• B. Minnesota v. Dickerson
• C. Katz v. United States
• D. Miranda v. Arizona

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is how officers may seize contraband discovered by touch during a lawful frisk. During a valid stop-and-frisk, if the officer feels an object in the pocket and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent from the touch, the object may be seized without further manipulation. Minnesota v. Dickerson solidified this rule, holding that the plain feel exception applies only when the contraband’s identity is immediately obvious by touch, and the officer cannot manipulate the object to identify it. This case ties the tactile discovery to the same logic as the plain view doctrine, expanding when a seizure is permitted during a frisk. The other cases relate to different protections—Terry v. Ohio concerns the authority to stop and frisk for weapons, Katz v. United States addresses privacy expectations, and Miranda v. Arizona concerns interrogation rights—so Dickerson is the one that established plain feel.