Parties:
Williams Robert (Plaintiff) v. Adams E. Fredrick (Defendant).
Facts:
On the morning hours of 30th October 1996, Officer John Connolly was approached by an individual while he was at a parking lot of a station in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The individual informed him of a person nearby who had a short gun on his hip and had narcotics in his vehicle. Officer Connolly then moved towards the vehicle on foot and met Williams. When Williams was told open the door, he only rolled down the window. At that point is when Officer Connolly extended his arm in and got hold of the short gun from William's waist. The firearm was not visible from the window; however, the officer was aware of the gun's position as informed. Officer Connolly arrested Williams and went ahead, searched the vehicle, and found heroin. Williams was arrested and convicted for unlawful ownership of a firearm and possession of illegal drugs (heroin).
Prior proceedings:
Williams was charged, and the Connecticut Supreme Court declared his conviction, Williams v. State157 Conn. 114, A. 2d 245 (1968), though the Court deprived of certiorari. Williams later filed a petition for a habeas corpus for Connecticut's district in the US District Court. However, he was not granted the writ of habeas corpus. Still, the divided panel of the second circuit of Appeal's Court inverted the district court decision and approved the habeas corpus for Williams. The petitioner also appealed the case to the Supreme Court for certiorari and the court-approved.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question of Law / Issues Presented:
Does the act of a police officer engaging in a "stop and frisk" has to be grounded on the information given out by an informant, or can it be grounded on police officer's observation?
Objectives of the Parties / Arguments:
Williams argued that the search of his vehicle by the officer was illegal as the stop and frisk can only be centered on the police officer's observation and not information given by someone else. The Court argued that the search could be initiated if there is proper cause to stop and search and cannot be conducted anyhow. Since an informant gave the information, they trust that the information is even for the case.
Rule of Law/ Holding:
The Court relied on the point that the short gun's presence validated the data given out by the informant to the police officer. It cannot be doubted that there was little justification there. Still, the point remained that the officer did not know the illegal issue done by the respondent. Owning a gun is not illegal in Connecticut; therefore, the respondent carrying a gun is not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the informant identified a firearm that does not show the capability of the same upon the heroin. The validation of the case is far much from the sustenance of the U.S. v. Draper case.
Rationale:
In Connecticut, it is legal to own a firearm as long as one obtains a permit. This means that there is no true crime done by just having a gun. Therefore the stop and frisk that happened were not relevant enough since Williams was not doing anything illegal. The information given to the officer may or may not be correct, hence the Court's nullification of the case because the officer did not have the cause to search the vehicle, therefore, disqualifying evidence tagged to the illegal search conducted.
Connection of the Case to Saint Leo University Core Value of Integrity:
The officer did not show integrity evidently when he conducted the illegal search; therefore, he was not just in his deeds also as per the Saint Leo core values of integrity. The officer did this out of the power of his occupation, and the sentiment that the data are given was true without being thoughtful of it.
Reference
American Law and Legal Information. (1972). Adams v. Williams, 407 United States 143. https://www.jrank.org
