Brad Kroft v. State of Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 818

Around 1:30 a.m., Kroft was driving with his wife in an Indianapolis Jeep; passenger-side tail lamp had a dime-sized hole in the lens.
Kroft’s illuminated tail lamps were two working lamps, with the hole leaking minimal white light while the red light remained dominant.
Trooper McCreary stopped Kroft, alleging a broken taillight emitting white light violated law.
Kroft moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Kroft appealed intermediately under Rule 14(B).
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion under both relevant statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable suspicion to stop under 9-19-6-4?	State: required tail lamps emit red light; white light in hole supports suspicion.	Kroft: two working tail lamps; hole did not create danger or violate 9-19-6-4.	No reasonable suspicion; reversed
Was there reasonable suspicion to stop under 9-21-7-1?	State: vehicle not in good working order due to taillight emitting white light.	Kroft: both tail lamps worked; no unsafe condition shown.	No reasonable suspicion; reversed

Goens v. State, 943 N.E.2d 829 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (reasonableness of traffic-stop based on minor violation)
Sanders v. State, 989 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (window tint stop affirmed under tint statute)
Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 2006) (case-by-case totality of circumstances; de novo review for suppression)
Sitts, 926 N.E.2d 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (sufficiency standard for evidence-supporting suppression rulings)
Freeman v. State, 904 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (two tail lamps; one not illuminated supports stop under 9-21-7-1)
Combs v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (reasonable suspicion standard for seizures)
Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 2005) (statutory interpretation of tail lamp requirements)