ADAMS vs.

WILLIAMS
Brief Fact Summary: Robert Williams (the Respondent) was convicted in Connecticut state
court for illegal possession of a handgun found during a stop and frisk and heroin found during
a search incident to this weapons arrest.

Doctrine: Reasonable cause for a stop and frisk can be based on more than the officers
personal observation, but also on information supplied by another person. As Terry v. Ohio,
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
Facts: A police officer received a tip from an informant that the Respondent who was sitting in a
vehicle early in the morning had drugs in his possession. The police officer investigated the
informants report by first tapping the car window and asking the Respondent to get out of the
car. The Respondent rolled down the window and when he did so, the police officer reached in
and removed a fully loaded gun from the Respondents waist. The gun was not visible from
outside the car, but exactly where the informant said it was. A search incident to the arrest was
conducted shortly thereafter, and heroin, a second handgun and a machete were found on the
Respondents person and in the vehicle.
Respondent was convicted in Connecticut state court for illegal possession of a handgun found
during the stop and frisk and heroin found during the search incident to this weapons arrest.
Respondent filed a habeas corpus petition that was denied by the federal district court and
granted by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was an unlawful
search and found the state court judgment should be set aside.
Issue. Whether a stop and frisk has to be based on the officers personal observation or if it can
be based on information supplied by another person?
Held. The stop and frisk can be based on information from other people. Once the arresting
officer had found the gun precisely where the informant had predicted, probable cause existed
to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the weapon. Further, under the circumstances
surrounding Williams possession of the gun seized by the officer, the arrest on the weapons
charge was supported by probable cause, and the search of his person and of the car incident
to that arrest was lawful.
Respondents argument that the officers conduct violated [Terry v. Ohio] was rejected. Terry
found that 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. Additionally, [s]o long as the officer is entitled to

make a forcible stop, 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.
The majority, in applying [Terry's] above principles, found that the officers conduct in response
to the informants tip was appropriate. The police officer knew the informant personally and had
been provided information by him in the past. This is stronger than when the police receive an
anonymous telephone tip. Although, while the Courts decisions indicate that this informants
unverified tip may have been insufficient for a narcotics arrest or search warrant, the information
carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the officers forcible stop of [Respondent].
The majority observed that the arresting officer had ample reason to fear for his own safety
when he approached the Respondent in a high-crime area early in the morning. Additionally, the
Respondent would not get out of his car and instead he rolled down his window making the
weapon in his waist an even greater threat. Based on the facts of this case, the policemans
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.