Parties:
Frederick E. Adams (petitioner) v. Robert Williams (respondent)
Facts:
On the morning of 30th October 1966 in Bridgeport, Connecticut an individual approached a policeman and informed him of another individual in a nearby vehicle who had a gun and carrying narcotics (Vile & Hudson, 2013).
The policeman acted on the tip and asked the vehicle’s occupant, Robert Williams to open the door. Instead, Williams rolled down the window and the policeman reached into the car and retrieved a gun from William’s waist band (Justia, 2017). William was arrested for unlawful possession of fire arm and a search on his vehicle revealed heroin.
Prior Proceedings:
Williams was convicted and held in a Connecticut prison for possession of a hand gun and heroin. After the affirmation of his conviction by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the court denied certiorari. The petition in which Williams was seeking a habeas corpus relief had been denied by a district court and by a second circuit by a panel that was divided. Later, relief was granted by the court of appeal on the basis that the evidence used in Williams’ trial had been obtained through an unlawful search (Justia, 2017).
Issues presented/ questions of law:
The legal question that the case sought to answer is in regard to the Fourth Amendment Rights. Specifically, the petition sought to establish whether Williams’ Fourth Amendments Rights were violated since the arresting officer relied on information obtained from another person to stop and search Williams’ vehicle (Vile & Hudson, 2013).
Arguments or the objectives of the parties:
Petitioner
Williams’ Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated as the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit officers from conducting a limited search for weapons where the officer has reason to believe that a suspect might be armed and dangerous (Justia, 2017).
Respondent
William’s argued that the evidence used against him gad been obtained unlawfully and therefore should not have been considered as valid evidence/ or should not have been allowed to be used as evidence in the trial (Vile & Hudson, 2013).
Holding/ rule of law:
William’s Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated
Rationale:
The court argued that the search conducted on Williams was a reasonable protective search. It was held that police officers could stop a person for investigation purposes in cases where an officer has reasonable suspicion indicating that the person in question is committing a crime. In this case, the officer personally knew the informant and therefore had sufficient reason to believe that Williams was committing a crime.
Relation of case to the core value of integrity:
This case relates to the core value of integrity in regard to the fact that it sought to determine whether law enforcement considered the rights of individuals when enforcing the law. It is also essential to note that the case relates to the core value of the integrity in regards to the fact that the search on Williams’ vehicle revealed that he had a handgun and heroin but wanted the case to be disregarded as the evidence had been found unlawfully. Williams did not deny that he had the hand gun and the heroin and his only concern that it had been obtained unlawfully.
References
Justia. (2017). Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/143/case.html
Vile, J. R., & Hudson, D. L. (2013). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. Thousand Oaks, Calif: CQ Press.
