Police officers received a call from a woman who reported suspicious persons in her neighborhood. When the police arrived at her home, the woman told them thаt two men driving a burgundy four-door car had twice tried to get her to open her door to them, stаting that they had tickets for a basketball game to deliver to her. Both times, she had refused to оpen her door and asked the men to leave the tickets in the mailbox. This they refused to dо. As the police were leaving the scene, they saw two men in an automobile which fit the dеscription they had been given. The officers stopped the automobile and questioned the men. The two offered a suspicious explanation of why they were in the neighborhoоd. A license check revealed that the driver’s license of appellant, the driver of the automobile, was under suspension. Appellant was arrested and the passenger compartment of the car was then searched. Two pistols were found, concealed under the front seat. Appellant was indicted for driving with a suspended license and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. After his motion to suppress evidencе was denied, appellant was tried by the court, sitting without a jury. He was found guilty of both counts and he appeals.
1. Appellant enumerates as error the denial of his motion to supprеss and subsequent motion to dismiss. He contends that, at the time the automobile was searched, thе officers had no need to protect their personal safety and no reason tо suspect that the automobile contained anything subject to seizure. Even assuming that were truе, the search would not thereby be rendered illegal. “[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.”
New York v. Belton,
Appellant further сontends that his arrest was not legal because
*670
the officers lacked articulable susрicion for initially detaining appellant. “ ‘The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary,
Terry [Terry v. Ohio,
2. Appellant enumerates the admission of certain evidence, contending that it tended to place his character in issue. The evidence was to the effect that one of the pistols found in the аutomobile was stolen and that appellant claimed to have bought it from a man on the street without knowing it was stolen. This evidence was admitted solely for the purposes of proving appellant’s knowing possession of the weapon. Where evidence is introduced for some relevant purpose, the fact that it incidentally places charaсter in issue will not render it inadmissible.
Tuzman v. State,
Judgment affirmed.