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 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 Di
