Photograph of Michael Jennings Being Arrested, in Jay Reeves, Watering while Black: Anatomy of a Pastor’s Alabama Arrest, 13 WGME CBS(Sep. 1, 2022, 7:54 AM), https://wgme.com/news/nation-world/watering-while-black-anatomy-of-a-pastors-alabama-arrest.
Authored by: Mathews Ivey
Imagine you are in a public space somewhere in Alabama, either walking to the convenience store for a drink, shopping at the mall, or taking a stroll down the street to get some fresh air. Unbeknownst to you, someone has reported a potential crime in your area to law enforcement, and you match a general description of the suspect. Officers approach you and begin asking you questions about who you are, where you live, and what you are doing.
Under Alabama’s “stop and identify” statute, law enforcement officers acting within their jurisdiction are allowed to “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.”[1] Nevertheless, this statute begs some questions. Are you required to respond to the officers? If so, what kinds of answers are appropriate? If officers are unsatisfied with your responses, can they demand that you provide them with physical identification? If you refuse to do so, can they arrest you? Those answers can be found in the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent opinion, Jennings v. Smith.[2]
Michael Jennings (“Jennings”) was asked by his neighbors if he would do them a favor: water their flowers while they were out of town.[3] On May 22, 2022, Jennings was doing just that.[4] However, a different neighbor, not realizing who Jennings was nor recognizing the vehicle parked in her neighbor’s driveway, called 911 and asked if someone could come check on the home.[5] Shortly thereafter, officers from the Childersburg Police Department arrived at the home and found Jennings with a garden hose in hand.[6]
Upon their arrival, the officers began asking Jennings questions about who he was and what he was doing, and Jennings was initially responsive.[7] Jennings told them that he was supposed to be at the home, that the “unknown” vehicle belonged to an adjacent homeowner, and identified himself as “Pastor Jennings” who lived across the street.[8]Then, officers asked Jennings for physical identification, a request he readily denied.[9] Jennings seemingly became agitated with the officers once they asked this question, as he began giving verbal pushback to any of their following requests and attempts at reasoning with Jennings.[10] Jennings continually refused to provide any identification and converse with the officers, and he was ultimately charged with obstructing governmental operations under Ala. Code § 13A-10-2.[11]
Just a week after the incident, the charges against Jennings were dropped.[12] Nonetheless, Jennings brought an action in the Northern District of Alabama under 42 U.S.C § 1983 for claims of unlawful and retaliatory arrest against the officers and an Alabama state law claim for false arrest against the officers and the City of Childersburg.[13] In granting the officers’ motion for summary judgment and the City of Childersburg’s motion to dismiss, the district court found that Jennings failed to comply with Alabama’s “stop and identify” statute because he did not provide his complete name; as a result of his incomplete response, he intentionally obstructed the officers from performing a government operation in accordance with § 13A-10-2.[14] Jennings appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s holding based on a prior 11th Circuit opinion that interpreted the “stop and identify” statute as not allowing officers to request physical identification.[15] Due to a lack of clarity by any Alabama state court on the issue, the district court, on remand, certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court: when someone provides an “incomplete or unsatisfactory response” after an officer asks for their name, address, or an explanation of their actions, may the officer request or demand their physical identification?[16]
All nine justices answered “yes.”[17] The majority opinion primarily based its decision on the Supreme Court decisions in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court.[18] There, the Court upheld a state law that required suspects to disclose their name during investigatory stops as compatible with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.[19] The majority opinion then concluded that the Court’s rationale in Hiibel allowed physical identification requests even though the Court did not go as far to explicitly state that, especially combined with the importance of positively identifying a suspect.[20] The dissenting justices agreed with this reasoning–they just disagreed on other grounds.[21] In the concurring opinions, one justice used a textualist analysis and the other determined that the statute does not allow nonresponsive answers.[22] In the end, the majority opinion made it clear that officers are allowed to arrest someone for obstruction if that person does not follow an officer’s requests under the “stop and identify” statute.[23]
Interestingly, there may be a small disconnect between the court’s holding that failure to adequately respond or refusing to respond at all constitutes obstruction. Alabama’s obstruction statute states that it someone commits the crime of obstruction if, “by means of intimidation, physical force or interference or by any other independently unlawful act, he: (1) Intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function; or (2) Intentionally prevents a public servant from performing a governmental function.”[24] In the event someone simply says “no” to an officer’s requests or does not answer the questions at all, it can hardly be said that they did so with intimidation or physical act. Indeed, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “words alone fail to provide culpability” under the obstruction statute.”[25] That means that saying “no” or refusing to answer must be an independent unlawful act.
While the Alabama Code does make it unlawful for one to fail to comply with in officer’s orders or directions during a traffic stop,[26] there is no requirement under Alabama state law that makes it unlawful for one to comply with officer’s orders in all facets of life. Thus, it would seem that one could circumvent the court’s holding by refusing answer at all. However, municipal codes could do the heavy lifting in that event, although this has seemingly not been acknowledged in any Alabama state court decision. Most municipal ordinances require citizens to comply with all officer’s orders, making a refusal an unlawful act within the meaning of the obstruction statute.[27] Regardless, in the off-chance someone does refuse to answer in a jurisdiction that lacks an ordinance making compliance unlawful, the Alabama legislature could amend the statute to close off the niche loophole that may exist.
In all, the Alabama Supreme Court provided answers to the questions posed at the beginning. You must respond to an officer’s demands for name, address, and what you are up to. Appropriate answers are the ones that completely identify yourself. And if officers are not satisfied with your answers, you should give them enough information they can confirm who you are. You best hope that you did not leave your license at home that day because you just might get arrested.
[1] Ala. Code § 15-5-30.
[2] SC-2025-0372, 2026 Ala. LEXIS 28, at *1 (Ala. Mar. 13, 2026).
[3] Jennings, 2026 Ala. LEXIS 28, at *2-3.
[4] Id. at *2.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at *2-3.
[9] Id. at *3.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at *3.
[13] Jennings, 2026 Ala. LEXIS 28, at *3.
[14] Id. at *3-4.
[15] Id. at *4.
[16] Id. at *1-2.
[17] Id. at *13-15, *28-30.
[18] 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
[19] Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 188.
[20] Jennings, 2026 Ala. LEXIS 28, at *11-13.
[21] Id. at *29-30.
[22] Id. at *15, *29.
[23] Id. at *13-14.
[24] Ala. Code § 13A-10-2.
[25] D.A.D.O. v. State, 57 So. 3d 798, 806 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
[26] Ala. Code § 32-5A-4.
[27] See Mobile, Ala., Code § 39-54(a) (“It shall be unlawful and an offense against the city for any person to fail to obey the direction or order of a member of the police department of the city while such member is acting in an official capacity in carrying out his duties.”); see Birmingham, Ala., Code § 11-5-7 (“It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse or fail to comply with any lawful order, signal or direction of a police officer.”).