Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Robert WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-24
Citations: 57 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 02-4792
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Robert WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Robert WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4792.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 24, 2003.
Roger A. Inger, Roger A. Inger, P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
William Robert Williams, Jr., appeals from his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Williams entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal from the denial of his suppression motion. He was sentenced to thirty-three months imprisonment, and he now appeals, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was not justified under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). We affirm.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a brief, investigatory, warrantless stop of an automobile is permissible if an officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific ar-ticulable facts, that the occupant of the car has committed a crime. Id. at 22-23. As long as the investigatory stop is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference, the stop is constitutionally permissible. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985).
Here, the officers were informed, by a 911 call and their own observation, that Williams had just been involved in a domestic altercation with his girlfriend, that he possessed guns during the altercation, that he had previously hit his girlfriend, that he had guns in his vehicle which he was looking to discard, and that he evaded the police when they attempted to pull him over. We find that, based on this information, the officers had a reasonable, specific, and articulable basis to believe that Williams had committed a crime. See United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, 154 (4th Cir.1993) (evasive behavior relevant factor in Terry analysis). Once Williams was properly stopped, the officers viewed guns in plain sight, and Williams made an inculpatory statement. This information provided probable cause for Williams' arrest and the seizure of the firearms. Thus, the district court did not err in adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Williams' motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Williams' conviction. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Williams argues that, because West Virginia law requires corroboration of domestic violence allegations before a warrantless arrest may be made, the officers were not permitted to stop Williams' car, as there was no corroboration of the 911 call. See W. Va.Code § 48-27-1002(a)(1) (2001). However, the statute sets out requirements for arrests, not for Terry stops, which are investigatory by nature.