# data[].attributes.body
Case Summary:
On the morning of October 30, 1966, In Bridgeport, Connecticut at a gas station, a police officer was approached by a man (anonymous), and told that another individual was carrying narcotics in his car and had a gun at his waist. The officer approached the car on foot, and asked the individual, Robert Williams, to open his car door. Williams decided to instead roll down the window. Being suspicious, officer Adams then reached inside the car and removed the loaded handgun from Williams' waistband, even though the gun was not visible from outside the car. After arresting Williams for unlawful possession of a firearm, he searched Williams and found Heroin on him, which he then proceeded to search the car and find more heroin. Williams was convicted in court for possession of heroin and a handgun.

# data[].attributes.body
Occupant Robert Williams, and Officer Adams were involved in the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Officer Adams was informed by an individual that a Williams had a handgun on his waist and was carrying narcotics in the car, and since Williams only rolled down his window instead of opening the door as Adams asked, Adams had probable cause to search Williams. Officer Adams needed to search Williams' waistband for his own protection, as he was informed that there was a handgun on Williams waistband, which led to officer Adams finding the heroin on his body, which gave him reason to search the car and find more heroin inside.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture represents Williams behind bars, due to his conviction of unlawful possession of a handgun and heroin, he was sentenced to 4 years in prison, therefore this picture shows the outcome of Williams' case.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture of a man being patted down represents officer Adams doing a limited waist search on Williams, which allowed him to find the handgun and gave him probable evidence to allow him to do a fully body search and pat-down, where the heroin was then found.

# data[].attributes.body
After the supreme court of Connecticut affirmed the conviction, Williams argued that the search was illegal and violated his 4th amendment right, and therefore  the handgun and heroin found at the scene should not have been used as evidence in court, which the district court denied the petition, and Adams was sentenced to 4 years in jail.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture of a police officer searching a car represents officer Adams searching Williams' car to find more drugs. After doing a search on Williams, and finding a handgun on his waist and heroin in his possession, Adams had enough probable cause to search the car, in which he did end up finding more heroin in the car.

# data[].attributes.body
The search on Williams was legal. The officer was informed that approaching Williams could be dangerous due to the handgun on his waist, and since Williams only rolled down the window instead of opening the door, Adams had probable cause to do a limited waist search on him, which allowed him to find the drugs on his body as well, which gave him more reason to eventually search his car.
This search does not violate the person's 4th amendment right, since the officer had probable cause to search Williams due to the suspicious window-roll down and information from another individual.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-283
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/143/
http://law.jrank.org/pages/24000/Adams-v-Williams-Significance.html

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that in this case, officer Adams had probable cause to search Williams, due to the individual informing Adams about the drugs and the gun, as well as the suspicious window- roll down when Williams was asked to open the car door and step outside of the vehicle, which raised suspicion and allowed Adams to search due to the probable cause and safety for himself. Williams' deserves to spend time in jail due to the unlawful possession of a handgun and heroin, which is never the right thing to have in unlawful possession.
The court's decision gave significantly increased powers in pursuing investigations and frisking suspects for weapons. The circumstances for when a police officer may stop and frisk people for weapons were extended due to the case. Most importantly though, this case was one of the first to be able to expand the situations in which a police officer may conduct a search on a person without a warrant.