03/19/2026
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.
Read the article with formatting at: https://thecommonconstruct.substack.com/p/no-you-cant-be-lawfully-arrested
Watering Plants While Black
The 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 Cause
The 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 police are free to ask questions, and the public is free to ignore them.” The circuit court further ruled that “neither the parties nor our own research can identify any Alabama law that generally requires the public to carry physical identification–much less an Alabama law requiring them to produce it upon demand of a police officer.”
You see, the criminal charge of obstructing governmental operations “requires that a person interfere with law enforcement using a ‘physical movement, threat, or motion of violence’–’words alone’ are not enough.”
Simply refusing to provide information or your papers when demanded by a law enforcement officer cannot be the crime of obstructing because “yelling at an officer while leaving an officer’s presence falls short of intimidation or physical interference under § 13A-10-2”
No reasonable officer could have arguably believed that they could lawfully arrest a person in these circumstances under either section 13A-10-2 or section 15-5-30. Because of that they are not entitled to qualified immunity and taxpayers will have to pay for their wanton disregard for Pastor Jennings’ rights.
How Misinformation Becomes Law
The ability for you and me and Pastor Jennings to hold officers accountable in court relies on the presumption that the officer did not arguably believe he had probable cause for an arrest. A belief predicated on the law as it has been for decades, if not centuries.
But how reasonable is it now that every officer in the state has read in the newspaper that the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled differently? Court rulings change law all the time and officers might very well rely (mistakenly) on information that the court has made a change. Even though no such change has occurred.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled previously in a case involving an illegal search authorized by Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey (now running for Attorney General), that arguable probable cause exists where “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests.”
An otherwise well-meaning and reasonable officer might arrest someone for failing to provide an ID, now widely reported as a crime, and be granted qualified immunity for the mistake. That immunity might protect the taxpayer from the liability but it does nothing for the real constitutional harm done to the rights of the person arrested. Nor does it protect the officer from criminal charges for false arrest or deprivation of rights under color of law, a felony under federal law.
Police1.com, a website operated by one of the largest law enforcement training companies, Lexipol, has already run an article available to every law enforcement officer in the state claiming that the court concluded an officer may arrest a person for “interfering with a governmental function.” A phrase that is quoted not from any court opinion but the news website AL.com.
Ultimately the issue here is that Alabama’s laws for obstruction and identification when integrated with qualified immunity are inconsistent with the constitution. It is paramount that all three branches of government at the local, state, and federal levels work to ensure both the clarity and fairness of the law. Our legislators seem to believe they have no higher calling than to push the bounds of what is constitutionally permissible.
If reporters, police officers, and district attorneys can get this wrong so easily, how much more difficult is it for the average citizen?
Qualified immunity is not a solution to the problem. It is the state and federal legislative band-aid to the real wound which is that the laws they have written are so incredibly ambiguous and unconstitutional that even the police can’t understand them anymore.
What is actually going on.
The case of Jennings v. Smith currently sits not in the Alabama court system but in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division. Why then did Alabama make a ruling on this at all, you may ask. The answer is as absurd as it is unsurprising.
First, let’s clarify the situation. Pastor Jennings’ original criminal charges were dismissed. I would say the dismissal was because the charges were a ridiculous affront to the law. I’m sure the City of Childersburg would disagree.
After the criminal case was dismissed, Jennings’ legal team sued the three officers and the City of Childersburg. The lawsuit claimed false arrest, first amendment retaliation, fourth amendment violations, and associated tort claims.
That federal lawsuit was dismissed by the district court under the theory that the officers and the city have immunity from civil suits under both qualified immunity and state-agent immunity.
Pastor Jennings appealed to the circuit court which reversed the district court’s ruling on the grounds that it was, overall, pretty stupid. Saying that the District Court erred because it “did not conduct any independent analysis on these claims.” Basically, though, the circuit said hey look, over here there are laws and prior rulings that district court judges actually have to follow. Specifically, they focused on the precedent set by Edger v. McCabe in 2023. As a reminder, that’s the case where Huntsville officers arrested a black man for not doing what he was told.
The circuit court had some choice words for those officers in the opinion. You can read it if you don’t mind watching muppets get made fun of for being bullies. Try to ignore the fact that the judgement was ultimately paid by the taxpayers and the only people that really benefited were the lawyers that told the city they should fight it to begin with.
So, Pastor Jennings’ case was sent back to the district court with the immunity claims quashed. But District Judge R. David Proctor didn’t like that. He wrote in the footnotes of an order that he disagreed with the circuit court and it was unfortunate that district court judges like him can’t do whatever they want.
So, Judge Proctor decided that he would ask the Alabama Supreme Court to decide what the law meant on a not-minor but also not-major portion of this case. This is called a certified question. Normally when a federal court is having to decide a state law matter this is a way for the federal court to defer to the state’s interpretation of state law. In this case, however, this appears to be an attempt to circumvent the circuit court’s ruling by causing what’s called a change in controlling authority.
We know this because Judge Proctor said so in that March 2025 order asking the parties to file a motion for the certified question. We wouldn’t know that if he hadn’t said it directly because the certified question submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t elicit an answer that would contradict the circuit court. Meaning it still doesn’t cause a change in controlling authority.
The dissenting opinion of three Alabama Supreme Court justices cited nine separate cases as to why what Judge Proctor was doing was inappropriate and that Alabama should decline to respond to the question. Including a case from 1999 which said “that granting certification ‘at this late hour would be inefficient and wasteful of the parties’ and the federal courts’ previously expending time, energy, and resources’”
The certified question asks if the law in question, Alabama’s identification law, prohibits officers from demanding physical identification. The answer is of course not. It also doesn’t prohibit Hi**er from drinking coffee on a Thursday. That’s not what the statute is about.
Nor does the Alabama Supreme Court’s response to that question do anything to the circuit opinion. Because, though they opined at length about various subjects, all of which are very interesting, they didn’t even address the controlling case of Edger v. McCabe.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s answer to this certified question from District Judge Proctor was a 5-3 decision. With four separate opinions stretching 44 pages in length. The justices disagree with themselves, the district court, and the circuit court.
Three justices dissented, three concurred. Two concurred with an additional opinion on the true meaning of the words demand and request. The final one, Justice Shaw, concurred with the decision but disagreed with the majority’s opinion. Justice Shaw focused his opinion entirely on what constituted an address. Which was most likely meant as a trifling insult to the Circuit Court that had ruled that the function of asking for an address was fulfilled by Pastor Jennings pointing out the house where he lived a few feet away.
But, nowhere in the four opinions of the Alabama Supreme Court, the rulings of the Federal District Court, or the rulings of the Eleventh Circuit Court does anyone even suggest that it would not be unlawful for a person to be arrested for obstructing simply for refusing to provide an ID.
Conclusion
The underlying statute at issue (or at confusion) is 15-5-30 which purports to allow an officer to stop and demand of a person that is suspected of committing a crime his name, his address, and an explanation of his actions.
There is no punishment for violating this section. This section does not appear in the criminal code of the State of Alabama. This section makes no requirement that anyone carry ID for the purposes of being identified. And, importantly, nobody is claiming it does any of those things.
What the Alabama Supreme Court ruled is simply that if a suspect, lawfully stopped by police, does not answer the questions of name and address, that an officer might ask for some type of physical verification instead. The question is not whether the officer believes the answer, simply that the answer is made or not made.
What the Circuit Court has ruled is that an officer loses their immunity if they make an unlawful arrest for obstructing where the person simply didn’t comply. This matter of law is settled. Arresting someone for simply not complying with law enforcement is not, and has not ever been, the law.
Now, go tell your city and your county. Go tell the officers and deputies you know. Because if you don’t, it’s your tax bill that gets to pay the settlement check.
