In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Timothy Dickerson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through a "pat-down" search of an individual could not be used in court if it was clear to police officers at the time of discovery that it was not a weapon or contraband without further manipulation. The case involved Timothy Dickerson, who had been convicted on drug charges after police found cocaine during such a pat-down search for weapons. In this instance, an officer felt a small lump in Dickerson's jacket pocket but did not immediately recognize it as contraband until he manipulated it with his fingers and realized it was crack cocaine wrapped in cellophane. The Supreme Court held that this action violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures because once officers determined that the object wasn't a weapon (the original justification for their pat-down), they should have stopped their search.

In the dissenting opinion for Minnesota v. Timothy Dickerson, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold a police officer's right to seize contraband discovered during a pat-down search for weapons was inconsistent with previous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that under existing precedent, an officer conducting such a search should not be allowed to seize non-threatening items found in the process unless they are immediately identifiable as contraband without further manipulation of the object. In this case, he believed that it was not immediately apparent that what Officer Nelson felt in Dickerson’s pocket was crack cocaine and thus it should have been excluded from evidence due to illegal seizure. The justice also criticized the court's reliance on "plain touch" doctrine which he saw as an extension of "plain view" doctrine into areas where it does not belong.