In Black pastor’s arrest, Alabama Supreme Court rules police can demand to see identification

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/03/2026 (194 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Ruling in the case of a Black pastor who was arrested while watering his neighbor’s flowers, the Alabama Supreme Court said police can demand to see identification during a stop if they are dissatisfied with a person’s verbal answers.

Justices issued the 6-3 decision last week after a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit about Michael Jennings’ 2022 arrest asked the court to clarify whether officers can demand to see a person’s identification under the state’s “stop-and-identify” law. The minister was arrested when he declined to show Childersburg police identification.

Justice Will Sellers wrote that state law, “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.”

In May 2022, officers questioned Jennings in his neighbor’s yard. Another neighbor had called 911 because she saw an unfamiliar car and a “young Black male” around the house. Officers who responded found Jennings watering flowers and asked what he was doing.

Jennings identified himself as “Pastor Jennings” and told officers that he lived across the street and was caring for his neighbor’s yard while they were vacationing. Officers asked to see his identification and Jennings refused, saying he hadn’t done anything wrong. The woman who called 911 also later identified Jennings as another neighbor.

Jennings was charged obstructing a government operation. The charge was later dismissed.

Jennings sued the city and the officers for false arrest. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor then asked the state Supreme Court to determine whether the state law prohibits an officer from demanding identification if the person gives an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to questions.

Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, said the decision is a “significant expansion of government power over people.”

The Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union had written an amicus brief in the case arguing the statute does not authorize any demands for physical identification. Cavedon said the case centers on what happens if a person gives an answer that the officer doesn’t find satisfactory.

“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 said.