Instructions In the Minnesota v Dickerson case the Supreme Court found that the officer had not violated the Constitution when he stopped and frisked Dickerson; however, they found that the Constitution was violated in the case and hence required he evidence to be suppressed. Please explain those results with the facts that you would have used as the officer in the motion to suppress in this case to support those findings. This is your chance to display what you have learned by watching your classmates testify in front of the class. Make sure you provide facts not conclusions that would justify the Supreme Court's holdings in this case. Apply what you have learned from the Terry (RAS) cases as well as from the Hicks decision. Good luck