MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled in the case of a Black pastor who was arrested while watering his neighbor’s flowers, saying police can ask for identification during a traffic stop if they are not satisfied with a person’s verbal answers.
A federal judge presiding over a lawsuit over Michael Jennings’ 2022 arrest issued a 6-3 ruling last week after asking the court to clarify whether police can ask to see someone’s identity under the state’s “stop and identify” law. The minister was arrested after refusing to show identification to Childsburg police.
Judge Will Sellers wrote that state law “does not preclude a suspect’s request for identification when he provides an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to a police officer’s request for his name and address and an explanation of his actions.”
In May 2022, police questioned Jennings in his neighbor’s yard. Another neighbor called 911 because she saw an unfamiliar car and a “young black male” around the house. Arriving police found Jennings watering plants and asked him what he was doing.
Jennings introduced himself as “Pastor Jennings” and told police he lived across the street and took care of his neighbor’s yard while they vacationed. The police asked to see his identification, but Jennings refused, saying he had done nothing wrong. The woman who called 911 also later identified Jennings as another neighbor.
Jennings was charged with obstructing government operations. The charge was later dismissed.
Jennings is suing the city and officers for wrongful arrest. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned the decision. U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor then asked the state Supreme Court to determine whether state law prohibits officers from requiring identification if they provide incomplete or unsatisfactory answers to questions.
Matthew Cavden, director of the Cato Institute’s criminal justice program, said the decision was a “significant expansion of government power over the people.”
The Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union wrote an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the statute did not authorize any identification requirements. Cavden said the case focuses on what happens if a person gives an answer that dissatisfies a police officer.
“The important thing for Alabamians right now is if the officer is not satisfied with any of the answers you give, I certainly want you to have your driver’s license or your passport with you,” he said.
