can you help me "fluff" this.... The factual setting of Minnesota v. Dickerson involves the application of the "plain view" doctrine to touching in a protective pat-down search where contraband was felt through the officer's gloved hand (Poulin, 1997). The first frisk by the police officers on Dickerson was legal under the legal guidelines set by Terry v Ohio that would involve searching the suspect for a weapon, considering that the Police officers felt threatened by the suspect. This justification relied on the reasonable suspicion arising from the officer's interaction with Dickerson and the fact that the place was notorious for drug incidences, which made the officer fear that arming might ensue. However, the point of law decision was reached when the officer, on realizing that there was a lump in Dickerson's jacket, moved the object around in an attempt to determine what it was, only to get positive results of crack cocaine. This action went a step further from detecting weapons and actually became an investigative search for other implements of crime, which Terry does not allow without probable cause (Sibron v. New York, 1968). This is where the main issue of the case was highlighted after the officer tried to manipulate the lump in a bid to find out that it contained banned substances and not weapons. The Supreme Court upheld such manipulation as invalid on the grounds that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches (D'onfro & Epps