407 U.S. 143 (1972)
Robert Williams was convicted in a Connecticut state court of illegal possession of a handgun found during a stop and frisk.1 He was also convicted of possession of heroin that was found during a full search incident to his weapons arrest.2 After respondent's conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, this Court denied certiorari.3 Williams' petition for federal habeas corpus relief was denied by the District Court and by a divided panel of the Second Circuit, but on rehearing en banc the Court of Appeals granted relief.4
Police Sgt. John Connolly was alone early in the morning on car patrol duty in a high-crime area of Bridgeport, Connecticut.5 At approximately 2:15 a.m. a person known to Sgt. Connolly approached his cruiser and informed him that an individual seated in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and had a gun at his waist.6
After calling for assistance on his car radio, Sgt. Connolly approached the vehicle to investigate the informant's report.7 Connolly tapped on the car window and asked the occupant, Robert Williams, to open the door.8 When Williams rolled down the window instead, the sergeant reached into the car and removed a fully loaded revolver from Williams' waistband.9 The gun had not been visible to Connolly from outside the car, but it was in precisely the place indicated by the informant.10 Williams was then arrested by Connolly for unlawful possession of the pistol.11
A search incident to that arrest was conducted after other officers arrived.12 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.13
Whether the informant's tip justified Sgt. Connolly's approach to the vehicle and seizure of the revolver from Williams' waistband?14
In Terry v. Ohio 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.15 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.16
Yes. 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. when a person known to Sgt. Connolly approached his cruiser and informed him that an individual seated in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and had a gun at his waist.17
After calling for assistance on his car radio, Sgt. Connolly approached the vehicle to investigate the informant's report, tapped on the car window, and asked the occupant, Robert Williams, to open the door.18 When Williams rolled down the window instead, the sergeant reached into the car and removed a fully loaded revolver from Williams' waistband, which had not been visible to Connolly from outside the car but was in precisely the place indicated by the informant.19
The informant's tip justified Sgt. Connolly's approach to the vehicle and seizure of the revolver from Williams' waistband.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Douglas dissented on the ground that Connecticut allows its citizens to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, at will, provided they have a permit.21 Connecticut law gives its police no authority to frisk a person for a permit.22 The arrest was for illegal possession of a gun.23
Yet the only basis for that arrest was the informer's tip on the narcotics.24 He questioned whether a man in possession of narcotics will not have a permit for his gun in the free-and-easy State of Connecticut.25 Justice Douglas warned that the easy extension of Terry v. Ohio to possessory offenses constitutes a serious intrusion on Fourth Amendment safeguards.26
Whether probable cause existed to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the pistol after the revolver was seized?27
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.28
Yes. Williams was then arrested by Connolly for unlawful possession of the pistol after the revolver was removed from his waistband. The gun was found in precisely the place indicated by the informant.29 This tended to corroborate the reliability of the informant's further report of narcotics together with the surrounding circumstances.30 The arrest on the weapons charge was therefore supported by probable cause.31
Probable cause existed to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the pistol after the revolver was seized.32
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that the tip suffered from a threefold defect with each fold compounding the others.33 The informer was unnamed.34 He was not shown to have been reliable with respect to guns or narcotics.35
He gave no information which demonstrated personal knowledge or could not readily have been manufactured by the officer after the event.36 Justice Brennan concluded that the combination of the officer's observation and the tip was insufficient justification for the intrusion under Terry v. Ohio.37 He feared that the majority view would open the sluicegates for serious erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.38
Whether the search of Williams' person and automobile incident to that arrest was lawful?39
Under the circumstances surrounding Williams' possession of the gun seized by Sgt. Connolly, 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.40
Yes. 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. They also found a machete and a second revolver hidden in the automobile. Since the arrest on the weapons charge was supported by probable cause, the search of his person and of the car incident to that arrest was lawful.41 The fruits of the search were therefore properly admitted at Williams' trial.42
The search of Williams' person and automobile incident to that arrest was lawful.43
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Marshall dissented on the ground that once the officer seized the gun from respondent, it is uncontradicted that he did not ask whether respondent had a license to carry it or whether respondent carried it for any other legal reason under Connecticut law.44 Since Connecticut has not made it illegal for private citizens to carry guns, there is nothing in the facts of this case to warrant a man of prudence and caution to believe that any offense had been committed merely because respondent had a gun on his person.45
Justice Marshall concluded that the officer clearly violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to inquire about a permit before making the arrest.46