On Friday, March 13, 2026 the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that police can demand a physical ID card from suspects and that refusal to comply to the officer’s satisfaction may result in an arrest for obstructing governmental operations.But actually, that didn’t happen. The state’s supreme court didn’t rule anything of the sort, despite what you may have seen in the news. I’ll explain what the ruling actually did and why this bad reporting might actually be a self-fulfilling prophecy that could threaten your constitutional rights.Watering Plants While BlackThe ruling on Friday involved a man, Pastor Michael Jennings, being arrested on the charge of Obstructing Governmental Operations when he refused to provide an ID card to Childersburg Police when demanded of him. Pastor Jennings was stopped and detained under what’s called a Terry Stop for the very suspicious act of watering his neighbor’s plants. Obviously very suspicious given that most burglars water the plants before entering a home.First, let me say, I’m not a lawyer, though I do watch lawyers on TV. I’m also not a cop, though, again, I do watch cops on TV. I have however worked with lawyers and police officers for the majority of my career. I also consult with attorneys on matters of law enforcement and dispatch procedures. Oh, and I can read.The law that the Alabama Supreme Court ruled on is section 15-5-30 of the Alabama Code which says that an officer “may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.” Pastor Jennings was not arrested for violating this law.Pastor Jennings was arrested under section 13A-10-2 of the Alabama Criminal Code which says “A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental operations if, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference or by any other independently unlawful act, he: (1) intentional obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function; OR (2) Intentionally prevents a public servant from performing a governmental function.”The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling is only on if the officers involved could have reasonably believed they had the authority to demand anything other than a verbal statement of name and address. And I’ll note, the justices were split on the exact meaning of those words.The case is actually a federal civil case against the Childersburg officers for false arrest. It’s been dismissed, appealed, and the dismissal was reversed and sent back to the trial court. Then it was sent to the Alabama Supreme Court, not for a ruling really, but as a certified question seeking clarification on the meaning of the law allowing an officer to demand a name and address.The actual criminal arrest for obstructing governmental operations was already dismissed and the federal circuit court already ruled that Pastor Jennings “was under no legal obligation to provide his ID.”Qualified Immunity and “Arguable” Probable CauseThe thing is, nobody is claiming an officer can arrest anyone for obstructing just for simply refusing to cooperate, except 1) liars, 2) people that didn’t read the law, or 3) liars that didn’t read the law (prosecutors). What they are claiming is that the officers that arrested Pastor Jennings unlawfully can’t be sued for what technically amounts to kidnapping. This is the doctrine of state-agent immunity, and more specifically in this case, qualified immunity.Qualified immunity is the safety net for officers, and most civil servants, from being civilly sued for their incompetence or gross negligence that violates statutory or constitutional rights while performing their official duties, no matter how great the resulting consequences. It’s a complicated legal theory, but in this case, it hinges on whether or not a reasonable officer (as opposed to the Childersburg Police) would believe they had probable cause for an arrest.And in the interest of full disclosure, throughout most of my career as a former, senior government executive and employee with broad discretionary power I’ve enjoyed this same protection from civil liability for my actions that could have easily violated people’s constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit cited an eerily similar, and controlling case, Edger v. McCabe. Which is another case where police in Alabama arrested a black man, Mr. Edger, for obstructing just because he didn’t provide his ID. The court held that “the plain text of the Alabama statute is so clear that no reasonable officer could have interpreted it to permit Mr. Edger’s arrest for failing to produce his ‘ID’ or ‘driver’s license’ under § 15-5-30.”The eleventh circuit went on to say “it has been clearly established for decades prior to Mr. Edger’s arrest that the ...
Show More
Show Less
16 mins
Jan 14 20261 hr and 57 mins
Oct 19 20251 min