State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentBrown, Judge
While I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Officer Hammock was entitled to pull Cunningham over for having only one red tail lamp, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that Cunningham’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was searched. The trial court based its decision entirely on its perceived illegality of the traffic stop and made no determination as to the validity of Cunningham’s consent to a pat-down search. The majority concludes that “Cunningham had no choice but to submit to the pat-down when he exited the vehicle.... ” Supra at 806. In my view, however, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Melton v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999
- Nowling v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
- Starr v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010