Legal Opinion · Dissent

State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 27, 2014No. 19A05-1310-CR-489Published

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

  1. Melton v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. Nowling v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Starr v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API