State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
RUSH, Chief Justice.
Unless police have reasonable suspicion that a subject is armed and dangerous, they may generally conduct a pat-down for officer safety only with the subject’s voluntary consent. Here, Defendant asked to step out of his truck during a traffic stop, and police made their permission conditional on a pat-down. Defendant argues that choice was inherently coercive and rendered his consent involuntary, but we disagree. Police could simply have required Defendant to remain in the truck, with no option of getting out, as part of *24their authority to control the scene of a traffic…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Pennsylvania v. MimmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Scott Randall v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2018
- A V v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2024
- A.A. v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
- Anthony J. Overton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2019
- Anthony M. Galloway v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.