In Black pastor’s arrest, Alabama Supreme Court rules police can demand to see identification
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Verdict in case of black priest who was arrested The Alabama Supreme Court said police can demand to see identification during a stop if they are unhappy with a person’s verbal answers while he or she is watering a neighbor’s plants.
judges announced the 6-3 decision Last week, after a federal judge presiding over a case over the 2022 arrest of Michael Jennings asked the court to clarify whether officers can request to see a person’s identification under the state’s “stop and identify” law. The minister was arrested when he refused to show identification to the Childersburg police.
Judge Will Sellers wrote that state law “does not exclude a suspect’s request for physical identification if he or she responds incompletely or inadequately to a police officer’s request to provide his or her name, address, and description of his or her action.”
In May 2022, officers questioned Jennings in his neighbor’s yard. Another neighbor had called 911 because he saw a car he didn’t recognize and a “young Black male” around the house. Police officers responded to the incident and found Jennings watering the flowers and asked him what he was doing.
Jennings identified himself as “Pastor Jennings” and told officers he lived across the street and tended his neighbor’s yard during the holidays. Officers asked to see his identification and Jennings refused, saying he had done nothing wrong. The woman who called 911 later identified Jennings as another neighbor.
Jennings was charged with obstructing a government operation. The charge was later dismissed.
Jennings sued the city and the officers for false arrest. A federal judge dismissed the case, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor then asked the state Supreme Court to determine whether state law prohibits an officer from requesting identification if the person provides incomplete or inadequate answers to questions.
Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute’s Criminal Justice Project, said the decision was a “significant expansion of the government’s power over people.”
The Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a joint statement on the case, arguing that the law does not allow any request for physical identification. Cavedon said the case focuses on what happens if a person gives an answer that the officer finds unsatisfactory.
“The important thing for Alabamans right now is, if a police officer is unhappy with your answer, I hope you have your driver’s license or passport with you,” he said.
