In Montgomery, Alabama, the state’s highest court decided how far officers may go when they stop someone under Alabama’s “stop-and-identify” law—ruling that officers may move from verbal demands to a request to see physical identification if the person’s answers do not satisfy them. The March 17 decision resolves a question raised by a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit tied to the 2022 arrest of Michael Jennings, a Black pastor who was taken into custody after Childersburg police asked for his identification.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision came in a case that began after Jennings was arrested while he was watering a neighbor’s flowers. According to the reporting, officers questioned Jennings in his neighbor’s yard in May 2022 after a neighbor called 911, saying she saw an unfamiliar car and a “young Black male” around the house.
Jennings told officers that he lived across the street and was caring for his neighbor’s yard while they were vacationing. He identified himself as “Pastor Jennings,” but when officers asked to see his identification, he refused, saying he had not done anything wrong. The neighbor who made the 911 call later identified Jennings as another neighbor, the reporting said.
Jennings was charged with obstructing a government operation, a charge that was later dismissed. He then sued the city and the officers for false arrest, and the case proceeded through federal court after a U.S. district judge dismissed it and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
The federal judge, presiding over a lawsuit that challenged how the state’s stop-and-identify statute works, asked the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify whether the statute allows an officer to demand physical identification when a person provides an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to questions. In response, the state justices issued a 6-3 decision last week, with Justice Will Sellers writing the majority opinion.
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.” The reporting also said the Cato Institute’s Matthew Cavedon criticized the ruling as a “significant expansion of government power over people.”
The Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union had filed an amicus brief arguing that the statute does not authorize any demands for physical identification. Cavedon said the practical issue centered on what happens when a person gives an answer that officers do not consider satisfactory, adding, “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,” in the reporting.
As a result, the Alabama Supreme Court’s interpretation establishes what police can require during stops under the state’s statute, tying the authority to request physical identification to officers’ assessment of whether a person’s verbal responses are sufficient. The case’s outcome also underscores how disputes over brief encounters can turn on the fine points of statutory language and how courts read it.