I was thinking of what Carl had said to the matter. He stated that unless the object is discernible as a weapon, it was fair game. If it wasn't, it was not. He had even explained that a crack pipe was easily discernible and as such, was not a weapon and therefore, off limits.
Isn't that great. I'm arguing Car'ls info against a SCOTUS ruling.
but concerning Minn v. Dickerson;
this is a quote from a reliable source (Wikipedia)

:
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to assume that an object was contraband through touch
that seems to speak contrary to your claim.