g trafficking and continued to follow him and investigate him further.
             Before the trial the defendant moved to suppress the cocaine that was found by the officers that night. However, this was negated because the officers were justified from the case law under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). This case had very similar issues to that of the one in question dealing with past happenings with the law enforcement officers. In this situation a police detective named McFadden was patrolling the Cleveland area when he noticed two strangers on a street corner, one of which was the petitioner. Detective McFadden noticed that the two men were staring into a store window for a suspicious period of time. Even more suspicious was the fact that later that evening the two men met with a thirdman that also seemed to appear quite suspicious. Detective McFadden claimed that he felt that the three men were planning on robbing a nearby convenience store. The detective then decided to approach the three men and to explain who he was. The detective then went on to search the petitioner and found a pistol on the outside of his clothing but was somehow unable to remove it. Detective McFadden brought all three men down to the police station. The petitioner was charged with concealment of a weapon and the defense moved to suppress the weapon.
             The proceedings that followed also related to the search and seizure issues presented in Minnesota vs. Dickerson. Also, in Terry vs. Ohio, the court denied the motion to suppress the weapon and allowed it to be used as evidence in the trial. Since the petitioner and the other two men were acting in such a conspicuous manner, it seemed understandable as to why the detective would be question their behavior. The petitioner and one of his friends were found guilty and the appellate court affirmed the original ruling. The issues that pertain to Minnesota vs. Dickerson involve the Fourth Amendment rights against ...