Legal Opinion

Brad Kroft v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 5, 2013No. 49A04-1211-CR-593PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

VAIDIK, Judge.

Case Summary

Indiana Code section 9-19-6-4 requires motor vehicles to have two tail lamps that, when lighted, emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. In this case, a state trooper stopped Brad Kroft because one of his two working tail lamps had a dime-sized hole that let out a miniscule amount of white light. Because both tail lamps worked and the tail lamp with the tiny hole was overwhelmingly red when illuminated, we find that the state trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Kroft. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. QuirkIndiana Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Merritt v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Erving Sanders v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Ransom v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Goens v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. FarishNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2021
  2. 20SC717- McBride v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2022
  3. State v. Antonio D. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State of Indiana v. Michael E. CunninghamIndiana Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Jeremy Darringer v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API