Louis Bell v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentRobb, Judge
I agree with the majority that Officer Gough’s initial stop of Bell was appropriate because he observed Bell committing a traffic infraction. However, I disagree with the majority that Bell’s constitutional rights were not violated by the pat-down search that followed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. •
As the majority states, Officer Gough observed Bell committing a traffic infraction, giving him at least reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of Bell. See op. at ¶ 11. But it.is important to note here that an infraction is not a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 38 N.E.3d 218, 223 (Ind.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Illinois v. CaballesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.