407 U.S. 143 (1972), 70-283, Adams v. Williams

Docket Nº:No. 70-283
Citation:407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612
Party Name:Adams v. Williams
Case Date:June 12, 1972
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 143

407 U.S. 143 (1972)

92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612

Adams

v.

Williams

No. 70-283

United States Supreme Court

June 12, 1972

Argued April 10, 1972

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Acting on a tip supplied moments earlier by an informant known to him, a police officer asked respondent to open his car door. Respondent lowered the window, and the officer reached into the car and found a loaded handgun (which had not been visible from the outside) in respondent's waistband, precisely where the informant said it would be. Respondent was arrested for unlawful possession of the handgun. A search incident to the arrest disclosed heroin on respondent's person (as the informant had reported), as well as other contraband in the car. Respondent's petition for federal habeas corpus relief was denied by the District Court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence that had been used in the trial resulting in respondent's conviction had been obtained by an unlawful search.

Held: As Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, recognizes, a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons when he has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Here, the information from the informant had enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of petitioner and the protective seizure of the weapon, which afforded reasonable ground for the search incident to the arrest that ensued. Pp. 145-149.

441 F.2d 394, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 149. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 151. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, J., joined, post, p. 153.

Page 144

REHNQUIST, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Robert Williams was convicted in a Connecticut state court of illegal possession of a handgun found during a "stop and frisk," as well as of possession of heroin that was found during a full search incident to his weapons arrest. After respondent's conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, 157 Conn. 114, 249 A.2d 245 (1968), this Court denied certiorari. 395 U.S. 927 (1969). Williams' petition for federal habeas corpus relief was denied by the District Court and by a divided panel of the Second Circuit, 436 F.2d 30 (1970), but, on rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals granted relief. 441 F.2d 394 (1971). That court held that evidence introduced at Williams' trial had been obtained by an unlawful search of his person and car, and thus the state court judgments of conviction should be set aside. Since we conclude that the policeman's actions here conformed to the standards this Court laid down in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), we reverse.

Police Sgt. John Connolly was alone early in the morning on car patrol duty in a high-crime area of Bridgeport, Connecticut. At approximately 2:15 a.m., a person known to Sgt. Connolly approached his cruiser

Page 145

and informed him that an individual seated in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and had a gun at his waist.

After calling for assistance on his car radio, Sgt. Connolly approached the vehicle to investigate the informant's report. Connolly tapped on the car window [92 S.Ct. 1923] and asked the occupant, Robert Williams, to open the door. When Williams rolled down the window instead, the sergeant reached into the car and removed a fully loaded revolver from Williams' waistband. The gun had not been visible to Connolly from outside the car, but it was in precisely the place indicated by the informant. Williams was then arrested by Connolly for unlawful possession of the pistol. A search incident to that arrest was conducted after other officers arrived. They found substantial quantities of heroin on Williams' person and in the car, and they found a machete and a second revolver hidden in the automobile.

Respondent contends that the initial seizure of his pistol, upon which rested the later search and seizure of other weapons and narcotics, was not justified by the informant's tip to Sgt. Connolly. He claims that, absent a more reliable informant or some corroboration of the tip, the policeman's actions were unreasonable under the standards set forth in Terry v. Ohio, supra.

In Terry, this Court recognized that

a police officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.

Id. at 22. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response.

Page 146

See id. at 23. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. Id. at 21-22; see Gaines v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 (CA9 1971); United States v. Unverzagt, 424 F.2d 96 (CA8 1970).

The Court recognized in Terry that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect.

When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others,

he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. 392 U.S. at 24. The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop,1 and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. Id. at 30.

Applying these principles to the present case, we believe that Sgt. Connolly acted justifiably in responding to his informant's tip. The informant was known to him personally, and had provided him with information in the past. This is a stronger case than obtains in the case of an anonymous telephone tip. The informant here came forward personally to give information that was immediately verifiable at the scene. Indeed, under

Page 147

Connecticut law, the informant might have been subject to immediate arrest for making a false complaint had Sgt. Connolly's investigation proved the tip incorrect.2 Thus, while the Court's decisions indicate that [92 S.Ct. 1924] this informant's unverified tip may have been insufficient for a narcotics arrest or search warrant, see, e.g., Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), the information carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of Williams.

In reaching this conclusion, we reject respondent's argument that reasonable cause for a stop and frisk can only be based on the officer's personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person. Informants' tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover every situation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations -- for example, when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant, or when a credible informant warns of a specific impending crime -- the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response.

While properly investigating the activity of a person who was reported to be carrying narcotics and a concealed weapon and who was sitting alone in a car in a high-crime area at 2:15 in the morning, Sgt. Connolly

Page 148

had ample reason to fear for his safety.3 When Williams rolled down his window, rather than complying with the policeman's request to step out of the car so that his movements could more easily be seen, the revolver allegedly at Williams' waist became an even greater threat. Under these circumstances, the policeman's action in reaching to the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited intrusion designed to insure his safety, and we conclude that it was reasonable. The loaded gun seized as a result of this intrusion was therefore admissible at Williams' trial. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 30.

Once Sgt. Connolly had found the gun precisely where the informant had predicted, probable cause existed to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the weapon. Probable cause to arrest depends

upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made . . . the facts and circumstances within [the arresting officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). In the present case, the policeman found Williams in possession of a gun in precisely the place predicted by the informant. This tended to corroborate the reliability of the informant's further report of narcotics and, together with the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
4435 practice notes
  • 635 F.2d 766 (10th Cir. 1980), 79-1277, United States v. Gagnon
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • November 26, 1980
    ...by probable cause, or in its conclusion that the search of Gagnon's pickup truck incident to the arrest was lawful. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1924, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1971); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). The fruits of ......
  • 649 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1981), 80-5290, United States v. Kreimes
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • July 9, 1981
    ...marijuana. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578-2580, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 There had been a BOLO issued for a large, low-flying inland bound aircraft flying without navigational lights......
  • United States v. Robinson, 070803 CAAF, 02-0148
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • July 8, 2003
    ...suspicion, it is a "relevant contextual consideration." Illinois v. Wardlaw, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000)(citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147-48 (1972)). Unprovoked flight "is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such." Id.......
  • 465 N.E.2d 595 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1984), 83-1444, People v. Garza
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • June 15, 1984
    ...of the victims, we believe that the circumstances are much closer to those of a permissible stop under Terry and Adams [v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612] than the impermissible station house, custodial questioning tantamount to a full blown arrest in Brown [v. ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
4399 cases
  • 635 F.2d 766 (10th Cir. 1980), 79-1277, United States v. Gagnon
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • November 26, 1980
    ...by probable cause, or in its conclusion that the search of Gagnon's pickup truck incident to the arrest was lawful. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1924, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1971); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). The fruits of ......
  • 649 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1981), 80-5290, United States v. Kreimes
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • July 9, 1981
    ...marijuana. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578-2580, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 There had been a BOLO issued for a large, low-flying inland bound aircraft flying without navigational lights......
  • United States v. Robinson, 070803 CAAF, 02-0148
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • July 8, 2003
    ...suspicion, it is a "relevant contextual consideration." Illinois v. Wardlaw, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000)(citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147-48 (1972)). Unprovoked flight "is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such." Id.......
  • 465 N.E.2d 595 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1984), 83-1444, People v. Garza
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • June 15, 1984
    ...of the victims, we believe that the circumstances are much closer to those of a permissible stop under Terry and Adams [v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612] than the impermissible station house, custodial questioning tantamount to a full blown arrest in Brown [v. ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Utah v. Strieff
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 23, 2016
    ...but it may factor in your ethnicity, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 886–887 (1975), where you live, Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 147 (1972), what you were wearing, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 4–5 (1989), and how you behaved, Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 11......
  • Federal Court Ruling that the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” Program Violates the Fourth Amendment
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 12, 2013
    ...actually have been in fear.”74 “The purpose of [a frisk for weapons] is not to discover evidence of crime, but to 71 Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 24). 72 Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 (1979) (citing Adams, 407 U.S. at 146). 73 Lopez, 321 Fed. ......
31 books & journal articles
  • Motions to Suppress Tangible Evidence
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972) (dictum). See, e.g., Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271 (2000) (an anonymous tip which lacks “moderate indicia of reliability” wi......
  • Criminal law - Terry searches predicated on nothing more than reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 18 Nbr. 1, February - February 2013
    • February 1, 2013
    ...in establishing reasonable suspicion). Additionally, the location of the stop is relevant to reasonable suspicion. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147-48 (1972) (legitimizing policeman's reasonable suspicion due to defendant's presence in high-crime area). The Court has also identified......
  • Criminal law - innocent third parties deserve greater Fourth Amendment protections than criminal suspects and defendants - Commonwealth v. Draheim.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 Nbr. 1, December 2007
    • December 22, 2007
    ...use rigid legal rules because of factual diversity. Id. "One [simple] rule will not cover every situation." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972); see also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) (citing Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988)) (mandating seizu......
  • Whither the criminal court: confronting stops-and-frisks.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 76 Nbr. 2, January 2012
    • January 1, 2012
    ...available at http://www.parc.info/client_files/special%20Reports/4%20%20Mollen%20Commission%20%20NYPD.pdf. (108) Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 162 (1972) (Marshall, J., dissenting). (109) Raymond, supra note 98, at 1263 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 13 (1989) (Marshall, ......
  • Free signup to view additional results