Alabama Court: Police Can Demand ID After Pastor’s Arrest While Watering Flowers

Alabama's Supreme Court ruled that officers can require physical identification if they're unsatisfied with verbal responses during stops. The decision stems from a Black pastor's 2022 arrest while he was watering his neighbor's plants in their yard.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama’s highest court has determined that law enforcement officers may require individuals to produce physical identification during stops when verbal responses don’t satisfy them, following a case involving a Black minister arrested while tending to his neighbor’s garden.

The state Supreme Court delivered the 6-3 ruling last week after a federal judge overseeing litigation related to Michael Jennings’ 2022 arrest sought clarification on Alabama’s “stop-and-identify” statute. The religious leader was taken into custody after refusing to present identification to Childersburg police.

Justice Will Sellers explained in the decision that the state statute “does not exclude from its purview a request for physical identification when a suspect provides an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to an officer’s demand to provide his or her name and address and an explanation of his or her action.”

The incident occurred in May 2022 when officers approached Jennings in his neighbor’s front yard. A nearby resident had contacted 911 after observing an unfamiliar vehicle and a “young Black male” near the property. Responding officers discovered Jennings tending to flowers and questioned his activities.

Jennings introduced himself as “Pastor Jennings” and explained he resided across the street and was maintaining his neighbor’s landscaping during their vacation. When officers requested his identification, Jennings declined, stating he had committed no wrongdoing. The 911 caller subsequently confirmed Jennings as a fellow neighbor.

Authorities charged Jennings with obstructing a government operation, though prosecutors later dropped the charge.

Jennings filed a federal lawsuit against the municipality and officers alleging wrongful arrest. While a federal judge initially dismissed the case, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling. U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor subsequently requested the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of whether the law permits officers to demand identification following unsatisfactory verbal responses.

Matthew Cavedon, who directs the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, characterized the ruling as a “significant expansion of government power over people.”

Both the Cato Institute and American Civil Liberties Union filed supporting briefs contending the statute doesn’t authorize physical identification demands. Cavedon emphasized the ruling’s implications for situations where officers find responses inadequate.

“The significance now for Alabamians is if an officer’s not satisfied with whatever answer you give, I sure hope you’ve got your driver’s license or passport on you,” he stated.