Citing references

In Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ], the officer also by-passed the pat-down of outer clothing.

(Adams v.

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ] (1972), applied the same approach in the context of an informant’s report that an unnamed individual in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and a gun.

Informants' tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability." ( Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143 , 147, 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 ( Adams ).)

(Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146-147 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].)

Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 889 , 88 S.Ct. 313 ]; Adams v. Williams, supra, 407 U.S. 143 ).

(Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].) That case did not present an issue of identification, however. The court has subsequently left the question open. It was expressly reserved in Brown v.

Brignoni-Ponce (1975) 422 U.S. 873, 880 [ 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578-2580 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 ]; Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 145 [ 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 ].)

See, e. g., Adams v. Williams, supra[, 407 U.S. 143 ] (at night, in high-crime district, lone police officer approached person believed by officer to possess gun and narcotics).

(Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 145-146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ]; accord, Letner, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 149.)

Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 145 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 [a case involving detention of a person seated in an automobile based on information the detainee had a gun].)

(Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 145-146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ], italics added.)

Williams, supra, [ 407 U.S. 143, 146 ] 92 S.Ct. at 1923 , and in maintaining the status quo he was entitled to use reasonable force. We think the handcuffing of Purry was reasonable, as a corollary of the lawful stop. See Terry v.

White, supra, 496 U.S. at page 332 . 10 Adams v. Washington (1972) 407 U.S. 143 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ]. 11 Alabama v. White, supra, 496 U.S. at page 328 , citing Adams v.

Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].) The trial court correctly denied defendants' motions to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle stop. 4.

Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 147 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ] [reasonable cause for a stop and frisk can be based on information supplied by another person].) Relying on Justice Stevens’s dissent in Illinois v.

Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146-147 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617-618 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].) 4 In the instant case, the officer’s affidavit does not suggest the informant’s identity was known but merely concealed to prevent retaliation.

Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 629; and see Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].) Yet, our Supreme Court disapproved the intrusion in that case.

(Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ], italics added; People v. Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 13 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 114 ].)

(Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 616-617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ]; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 889 , 88 *902 S.Ct. 1868]; People v. Mickelson, 59 Cal.2d 448, 450 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 18 , 380 P.2d 658 ].)

Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 ] [a detention for the purpose of maintaining the status quo may be reasonable depending on the circumstances]; United States v. Purry (D.C.

.; see Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146-147 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ] [informant might have been immediately arrested for making false tip in person about a nearby suspect].)

Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ]; accord United States v. Vanichromanee (7th Cir.1984) 742 F.2d 340, 344 .) Frederick's reponses and his actions militated against discontinuing the detention. (See New Jersey v.

Rptr. 251 ]; Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 U.S. 143, 146-147 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617-618 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ]." (147 Cal. App.3d at pp. 755-757, fn. omitted.) The majority cites dictum in the case of People v. Superior Court ( Haflich ) (1986) 180 Cal.

(Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 612 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 ].) 2 We judicially notice the routine practice of our Supreme Court which requires a pat-down search of all persons, including lawyers, who enter its courtroom.