Legal Opinion

C.A.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 10, 2002No. 4D00-2970PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

FARMER, J.

In denying the motion for rehearing, we write to explain why Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), does not require a different result. Dickerson addressed the question “whether the Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer’s sense of touch during a protective patdown search.” 508 U.S. at 368, 113 S.Ct. 2130. In that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court had held that the “plain view” doctrine should not be extended to include contraband detected through an exercise of the sense of…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Minnesota v. DickersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Connor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
  5. Doctor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Batson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  2. State v. GrantDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  3. CAM v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API