Legal Opinion · Dissent

State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 2015No. 19S05-1409-CR-599Published

1DissentRucker, J.

In my view the State has failed to establish Cunningham’s purported consent to the pat-down was constitutionally valid. Therefore I respectfully dissent.

The Fourth Amendment requires officers to have more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ” that the person stopped is armed and dangerous in order to justify a pat-down search. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The requirement that an officer has reasonable suspicion to search an individual in a vehicle not only applies to the driver but extends to protect passengers as well. Arizona…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Arizona v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Knowles v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

6 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