ints of drug sales. The officer had also executed a number of search warrants in that building as a consequence, with the result that he had seized drugs, guns, and knives. As Dickerson left the building, he started toward the police car, but he turned and walked in the opposite direction when he saw the car and made eye contact with the officer. The officer acted on the basis of Dickerson's evasive actions and his departure from a building known as a site of drug trafficking. the two officers stopped Dickerson, and one officer subjected him to a quick pat down search. This search revealed no weapons, but the officer did feel a small lump in the front pocket of Dickerson's nylon jacket. The officer manipulated the lump within the pocket and came to the conclusion that it was crack cocaine. Acting on this belief, the officer reached into the pocket and seized the lump, which indeed did prove to be crack cocaine wrapped in cellophane. Dickerson moved before trial to have the crack cocaine suppressed as evidence. The court then ruled that the cocaine was admissible. The court made reference to Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1 [1968]), the case which had recognized the "stop and frisk" exception to the need for a warrant for a search, finding that the initial stop and frisk was lawful under this earlier ruling based on the fact that the police officers were able to articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and had a justifiable belief that Dickerson might be armed. The court went on to uphold the validity of the seizure of the crack cocaine by offering a new concept to the Minnesota courts, a "plain feel" exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that a warrant be secured prior to a seizure. Dickerson appealed. the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The appeals court did agree with the trial court about the initial stop and frisk and found it lawful under Terry, but the appeals court would not recog...