What does the Minnesota vs. Dickerson ruling apply to?

The ruling in Minnesota v. Dickerson is significant in the context of stop-and-frisk procedures, specifically addressing the limitations of pat-down searches conducted under the framework of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court held that while law enforcement officers may conduct a limited pat-down for weapons (known as a Terry stop) if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, their ability to seize evidence discovered during such a search is constrained.

The ruling established that an officer may only seize items that are immediately recognizable as contraband or evidence of a crime during the pat-down. If the officer goes beyond the scope of a weapons search and manipulates the object to determine its nature, any evidence found as a result may not be admissible in court. This means that the court seeks to balance the need for officer safety with an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The other options pertain to circumstances beyond the specific issues resolved in Dickerson, such as warrantless entries into homes, searches of vehicles after an arrest, and conducting full body searches without consent, none of which are the central focus of this ruling.