State Sup. Ct: Police CAN Demand ID If They Deem It Necessary

Welcome once again to Leato's Law. Here's Steve Leato. — I had a lot of people ask me about this case and I mentioned this case a while back. I think when it first happened, that is the events that led to this uh Alabama Supreme Court ruling. So, I got the story here from the Associated Press, but it's been widely reported. a black pastor was arrested and the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that police can demand to see your identification and under certain circumstances if you don't provide it then you get in trouble. Okay, but this is in Alabama. So, ruling in the case of a black pastor who was arrested while watering his neighbors flowers with permission, by the way, the Alabama Supreme Court said police can demand to see identification during a stop if they're dissatisfied with a person's verbal answers. And the point here is that if you refuse to give it to them, then they can escalate and say, "Okay, well, we got to take you in then to find out who you are. " So, the justices issued a ruling. It was 6 to three. six to three after a federal judge, a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit about the arrest that took place in 2022 asked the state supreme 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 the police his identification. So what's going on here is he filed an action in a federal court and federal courts are in all the states and federal courts apply state law on many of the issues and it's the federal procedure that applies and then a federal judge who hears the case. So when applying state law the courts are required to go and find precedent from the state supreme court as to how a law should be interpreted. And apparently they thought this question was not settled. So the federal court asked the state supreme court to answer the question and that is can the police arrest somebody simply because they refuse to identify themselves under a situation like this. The justice who wrote the opinion said that state law does not exclude from his 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 explanation of his or her action. And notice the use of the word physical identification because I've seen many times where someone gets pulled over by a police officer because I watch these videos on YouTube. Police walk up and say, "I need to see your driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. " Person goes, "I haven't got my driver's license on me. " Person uh says that and the police officer goes, "Okay, what's your name and birth date? " Cuz we can look it up that way. But physical identification means that you can't just tell them your name. They can demand to see an actual ID, which makes it a little trickier if you don't have it on you. I don't know if you're going to carry your ID to water your neighbor's flowers. So, in May of 2022, officers questioned this man while he was in his neighbor's yard. And here's where it gets tricky. Another neighbor had called 911 because she saw an unfamiliar car and a young black male around the house. Officers who responded found this man watering flowers and asked him what he was doing. He identified himself as Pastor Jennings, which apparently is actually his name, Jennings, and told officers that he lived across the street. So, he told him his address. I live across the street and was caring for his neighbor's yard while they were on vacation. Officers asked to see his identification, and the man refused, saying he hadn't done anything wrong. Now, here's where it gets weird. The woman who called 911 later identified the man and said, "Yeah, he is a neighbor. He does live here in the neighborhood. " So, they arrested the uh the pastor and charged him with Obstructing a government operation. The charge was later dismissed. So, he sued the city and the officers for false arrest. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, but that went up on appeal and the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. A US District judge then asked the state supreme court to determine whether the state law prohibits an officer from demanding identification if a person gives an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to questions. So the question first of all I have is, "My name is Pastor Jennings. I live right there. " Is that really an unsatisfied response to what's your name? Where do you live? Because that's what they're asking.

Um the director of the Kato Institute's project in criminal justice said the decision is a significant expansion of government power over people. The Kato Institute and the ACLU had written amikas briefs in the case arguing the statute does not authorize demands for physical identification. They said that the case centers on what happens if a person gives an answer that the officer doesn't find satisfactory. The significance now for Alamians is if an officer is not satisfied with whatever answer you give, I sure hope you've got your driver's license or passport on you, he said. And like I said, the inclusion of the word physical in the physical identification uh is interesting, but also the unsatisfactory response. And that is something that will jump out when you think about it because a police officer walks up to you and asks you a question and you give him or her an answer. Who is the judge of whether that's a satisfactory answer? court. Not at that moment. You The police officer decides whether it was satisfactory or not. So I hate to see a situation where a court says we're going to go with the subjective opinion of the police officer on the scene because again, I am Pastor Jennings. I live right there appears to be his name and address. Now, I suppose what his first name is would clarify that name a little more, but on the other hand, the guy's story appears to check out, and by the way, the woman who called 911 did say, "Oh, he's a neighbor. Presumably, he lives in this area, possibly in that house right there. " And so, I I I've read a whole bunch about this. I got a bunch of emails from people and um apparently there's also a question about whether they can go onto private property and ask a question like this because the statute appears to some to suggest that this is only when you're out in public and you encounter the police. So, if the police, for instance, were to come onto your property, ask you who you are and where you live, and you go, "I live here," and the cop says, "Let me see some physical identification. " And you don't have it on you cuz it's inside your house. Could a police officer then find your response unsatisfactory and arrest you to figure out who you are? and the Alabama Supreme Court appears to suggest that yeah, that could happen and you file an action in federal court, it'll get tossed. And remember, that's why this question was sent to the Alabama state supreme court by a federal court. Federal court wanted to know what's the official position of the courts in Alabama and the state courts interpreting a state law. Alabama Supreme Court says that's our interpretation. So now I suspect this guy's case will get tossed again. And uh it does seem a bit much because the man's trying to do his neighbor a favor because the neighbor said, "Hey, can you water my flowers while I'm out of town? " And the pastor said, "Yes, I can. I will do that for you. " and he gets arrested doing it after another neighbor calls the police on him and then says, "Oh, wait, wait. Actually, I know uh yeah, he's the pastor who lives right there. " So, it's a crazy story and I know some people who hear these stories on the internet cuz number one, I've talked about stuff like this before and also I've watched a ton of videos about police arrests, police chases, all kinds of stuff, being pulled over side of the road, all that stuff. And there are going to be some people are going to say, "Steve, cop walks up and asks who you are. You pull out your ID and you hand it to them. " Um, that might get the police off your back. That might. Um, but the question is, is that really something that you should be required to do at the whim of a police officer, you know, in every situation? I mean, again, there are certain situations where if I'm driving a car on a public roadway and a police officer pulls me over, yeah, I'll identify myself because I'm driving a car on a public roadway. But if a cop were to walk into my backyard, I'm making up hypotheticals here. If a cop were to walk into my backyard and just say, "Who are you? " My response is going to be, "Who are you? " And when he says, "I'm obviously a police officer wearing a uniform. " I go, "Yeah. " And why are you in my backyard?

Now, I'm not in Alabama, but that would be my feeling. And so, I understand the frustration of the pastor who's watering flowers and was asked to do so by the homeowner. And he's I'm Pastor Jennings. I live right there. What more do you want? So, it's a wild case, but because this is the finding of the Alabama Supreme Court, this is binding law now in the state of Alabama. And the best you can hope for is that someone could talk the legislature into amending the statute or presumably if somebody wanted to take that further and get the US Supreme Court to look at it. I doubt that'll happen. However, as it is in Alabama right now, if a police officer is unhappy, i. e. dissatisfied with your verbal answers uh and ask for identification and you don't give them uh physical identification, uh they might be able to go, that's not good enough. We're going to take you in and charge you with uh obstructing a government operation. Operation let the flowers die. So, in Black Pastor's arrest, Alabama Supreme Court rules, police can demand to see identification from the Associated Press. Questions, your comments, put them below. Talk to you later. Bye-bye. — Thank you for watching Leato's Law. Life would be tragic if it weren't funny.