Alabama Supreme Court ruling says police can demand ID when approaching individuals

Black Enterprise ^ | Mar 19, 2026 | Nahlah Abdur-Rahman

[where's_the_Outrage?]

An Alabama Supreme Court ruling has dictated that police officers can demand ID when approaching individuals.

The ruling states that officers are allowed to ask for physical identification if they feel an individual gives an unsatisfactory oral answer. AL.com reported how the decision ruled against a local pastor, who sued an Alabama town and its law enforcement office after a police encounter.

The incident occurred in 2022, in which police arrested Pastor Michael Jennings after he watered his neighbor’s flowers. Another neighbor called the police on Jennings, citing that a “younger Black male” was on the property.

While officers pressed the church leader about his identity, he told them he was “Pastor Jennings” and lived across the street. The answer, however, did not please the officers.

After the man refused to give them his ID, law enforcement arrested him on charges of obstructing government operations, which were later dismissed. The woman who initially called 911 also confirmed Jennings as a neighbor.

Feeling wronged, Jennings sued the town of Childersburg and the officers for false arrest, leading to a long legal battle. Although a district judge dismissed his case in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision the next year......

The judgment now sets a legal precedent that officers can not only request physical proof of one’s identity but also arrest individuals if they fail to provide such evidence. Legal rights advocates condemned the decision, with Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, calling the ruling a "significant expansion of government power over people."

Now, an Alabamian under suspicion by a police officer must stay prepared to show proof of identity or face arrest.

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; backthebluefags; bobwillstroll; civilrights; desertrhinofaggot; id; lookwhohatescops; lookwhohatesrights; police; policepower; voterid

[where's_the_Outrage?]

So if a person exercises their right to remain silent can the police then require ID because the police don't like the silence?

[DesertRhino]

I feel like this will go to the US Supreme Court.

[ConservativeMind]

Don’t swim without your driver’s license—and get driver’s licenses or passports for all your kids at home!

Yeah, I don’t see how this sticks.

[Magnum44]

Yep.

[NorthMountain]

This ruling is yet another abomination in a long series of abominations from our abominable courts. One ruling after another, judges and justices are rendering utterly void the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

I hope, with great sincerity, that there is a peaceful way to reverse this trend; to restore the protections our founders attempted to secure for us.

[Carl Vehse]

This atrocity needs to be reversed by the Supreme Court.

[goodolemr]

This seems like a horrible ruling.

[marktwain]

The actual decision may be much narrower than what is stated in this article.

We need to see what the actual decision says.

[ClearCase_guy]

he told them he was “Pastor Jennings” and lived across the street. The answer, however, did not please the officers.

Here is my name.
Here is my job.
Here is my address.

"That is insufficient. You are under arrest for not identifying yourself."

Does the Geneva Convention protect us from this?

[Flag_This]

Why didn’t the citizen simply display his government-mandated identity tattoo?

[fwdude]

If the charges were dismissed, why was there any standing to sue?

[4yearlurker]

I thought the Supreme Court settled this a few decades ago. Also here we have another court making law.

[fwdude]

I’m all for the right to remain silent, but don’t want to hamstring police doing their jobs. In a sane, civil society, like the one we used to have 60 years ago, this wouldn’t be an issue.

One thing that needs to go is the Miranda warning that police are obligated to give. It is useless and is just used as leverage for defense attorneys.

[V_TWIN]

Suggest you all take the source, story author and the scenario that triggered this into consideration.

All three have one thing in common....and I’ll give you one guess what it is.

[Nervous Tick]

>> The actual decision may be much narrower than what is stated in this article. We need to see what the actual decision says.

Agree. If it *is* as broad as the article implies, it’s not good. But there are times and places where it’s appropriate (picture some of the chaotic scenes of leftist protestors around ICE facilities for example).

[marktwain]

Here is a link to the decision. I have not read it yet.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808348/michael-jerome-jennings-v-christopher-smith-justin-gable-jeremy-brooks/

[abigkahuna]

I thought this had been decided by the Supreme Court Court some years ago.

[NorthMountain]

If the charges were dismissed, why was there any standing to sue?

Because the arrest and time in jail were unjustified.

[Magnum44]

[marktwain]

This is all about an Alabama statute. Here is the section under consideration:

“A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or
any constable, acting within their respective counties, any
marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated
city or town within the limits of the county or any highway
patrolman or state trooper 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.”