Alabama Cops Arrested Man Watering His Neighbor's Plants Because He Wouldn't Give Them His Full Name
Michael Jennings was arrested on obstruction charges, even after a neighbor who called police over "suspicious person" concerns told officers she had made a mistake.

On May 22, Michael Jennings was watering his neighbor's flowers. Minutes later, he had been arrested on obstruction charges, all because he refused to provide his full name to police officers. According to Al.com, Jennings, a pastor at a church in Sylacauga, Alabama, had agreed to water his neighbor's plants while they were out of town. Sometime during the afternoon of May 22, one of Jennings's neighbors called the police, citing concerns about a suspicious person and vehicle at a nearby house.
According to recently released body camera footage, Childersburg police approached the house and asked Jennings to identify himself. While Jennings told the officers his name was "Pastor Jennings," he told them that he did not have to disclose his full name, saying "I'm not gonna give you no I.D., I ain't did nothing wrong . . . I used to be a police officer."
"Come on man, don't do this to me. There's a suspicious person in the yard, and if you're not gonna identify yourself—" said an unnamed police officer, before being interrupted by Jennings, who said, "I don't have to identify myself."
As shown in the video, Jennings became frustrated with the officers. "Lock me up and see what happens, I want you to," he told the officers, before walking away from them.
Jennings was then handcuffed by the officers. Shortly after he was handcuffed, one of Jennings' neighbors approached the officers and identified herself as the woman who placed the original call to the police. The woman told officers that she had misidentified Jennings, and reported him as a suspicious person. "They are friends, and they went out of town today, so he may be watering their flowers, it'd be completely normal," she said. "This is probably my fault."
"The way y'all handled this situation was totally wrong," said Jennings, still in handcuffs. "You racially profiled . . . I told ya'll I was here watering the flowers . . . I had the water hose in my hand."
According to CBS42, Jennings was booked into the Talladega County Jail, though he was later released and the charges dropped. However, Jennings and his lawyers are still not satisfied. Childersburg police officers "may think all they have to do is drop the charges and this all goes away," Bethaney Embry Jones, one of Jennings' attorneys told Al.com. "This was a crime, not a mistake. I would hope that the Childersburg Police Department would understand the difference."
So would Jennings' arrest hold up in court? "Every step of the way, there's room for both sides to argue that this very close case cuts their way. It's going to be a very close call in my estimation," Clark Neily, senior vice president for Legal Studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. Neily notes that while Alabama statute requires individuals to provide their name, address, and an explanation of their actions to officers when there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, Jennings arguably provided officers with all three. Further, this state law only applies to public property, which a private home is not.
"Once you were told by the neighbor that she had messed up, the only possible reason you now have to continue holding him under arrest is that he violated that law requiring people to identify themselves, right? But you have two problems," says Neily. "Problem one, this was not in public, this was on private property, so arguably the statute doesn't apply and you actually didn't have the authority. And second, he did identify himself."
While it is unclear whether the officers who arrested Jennings broke the law, there is good reason to believe that they acted outside the bounds of a state statute allowing officers to demand individuals identify themselves under some circumstances. Whether a judge would agree remains to be seen.
"Last I checked, watering roses ain't no crime," Jennings told CBS42.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s all about the skin color.
He failed to mention that he was a sovereign citizen and didn't need to present identification on demand. He also could have improved his present situation by screaming "Am I being detained?" during the arrest.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ani-08) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
thanks https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plr-sites-oto-upsell-all-7-upsells-links-here-plrsites-oto-links/
Skin color and a police culture that has orgasms if they can destroy a citizen's life, regardless of color.
Joe Biden says you are either with the police or with the mob.
Maybe not based on skin color. As a passenger on a motor cycle that had a “not bright enough” tail light a state trooper asked for my ID. When I questioned that because I wasn’t doing anything - not my motorcycle , he just whacked his billy club in his hand several times and said you show me because I asked. I decided to show him - we are both quite white.
In Talladega County, Alabama?! Don't be silly! He must've been humming a Beatles song or somethin'
As shown in the video, Jennings became frustrated with the officers. "Lock me up and see what happens, I want you to," he told the officers.
I'm beginning to understand why he was arrested.
"I'm beginning to understand why he was arrested."
Bend the knee.
He was justifiably frustrated because he knew that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's hard not to get frustrated with jackbooted stupidity.
So, uppity negro had it coming?
Found the racist.
I'd bet money the lady who called the cops was white.
Black people call the cops on suspicious black people. Just sayin.
It also was definitely a white lady because she's visible in the bodycam video.
No doubt. But he wasn't suspicious.
We can now add "Watering flowers while black" to the long list...
To be fair if you didn't see the hose it could be mistaken for casing a place.
"No mother should fear for her son's life as he robs a liquor store while black".
Might've been illegal flowers... You know, assault flowers?
I'd give you 10 to 1 if it were a white teenager watering those flowers she would not have made the call and probably would walked over with some lemonade.
Yes, it was the lady in the video - she said she called them.
Meanwhile, in commentary that's "too local":
Frank Furedi is fucking killing it.
I wonder if people who declared that war was "over" have been to Lybia or Syria or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan in the past few years. Seems that war is still happening in many places, despite being obsolete.
Well there you go. It's hard to call "Lybia or Syria or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan" developed, it's hard to call Putin anything but a thug, and Russia has been a "residual combatant" for a long long time, from Tsars to Communists to Putin.
Have you noticed which nations are shooting and droning people in the above places!?
Yes indeed. Hard to not notice.
"Along with other members of the ruling elite, foreign-policy elites have also embraced a cosmopolitan outlook that has encouraged them to become detached from their nation."
Actual, honest-to-god, undisguised Nazism. Literally quoting Mein Kampf there.
We see what you are.
Huh?
"Last I checked, watering roses ain't no crime," Jennings told CBS42.
Failure to obey is. Doesn't matter of the commands are lawful or not, failure to obey will be met with force. As a former police officer he should know this.
He did obey. He identified himself.
No he didn't. He refused to produce ID.
He identified himself well enough to be found again, which is more than he was required to show.
Nobody should have to obey a police officer unless there's present danger, a law being violated or they're under arrest.
Well, tell that to the police. See what happens. You'll likely get laughed at, illegally searched, and illegally run for warrants before being let go (assuming you don't have warrants or contraband) with some illegal threats to remind you to never question the police again.
I'm not saying how it is, I'm saying how it should be.
Sarcasmic demonstrating some primo ignorance. Watch 1st amendment auditors on Utube refuse to give their ID routinely without being arrested and cops taking the walk of shame after they fail.
Apparently you believe the myth that police enforce the law. They enforce their will. They don't care about the law.
Of course it matters if the command is lawful. What was the cops reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that he was committing a crime?
Neighbor identifies a suspicious person on the property of her neighbor who knows the guy doesn't live there. RS all over the place.
Suspicious is not a crime.
No, but it does establish reasonable suspicion for police to investigate.
Investigate ~what~? Watering flowers?
In many states undergoing drought, I bet that'll be added to The List soon, if it isn't on it already.
My cogito ergot son does that, to my distress and consternation. When my generation got snippy the cops grinned and proceeded to ticket, beat and/or arrest us. It's hard to get used to how many things have changed since people began finding out about libertarian spoiler votes. NY cops not being allowed to punch people? Gidaddaheah!
"Failure to obey". Yeah. That and "I feared for my life so I shot him 53 times" is the magical King's X for cops, a free pass to do whatever they want to whomever they want. Don't you get that if they can do it to some random guy like this, you can be next? Do you really think you're special? Believe me, you aren't.
"Do you really think you're special?"
The commenters around here probably do indeed believe that being white makes them superior.
:He could have sprayed me with deadly Hydrogen Monoxide! - Offasuh Racist
Now, if the pastor had been very tan with a foreign accent, nobody gets called, because who is surprised by a Latino gardener?
Sorry... "Failure to obey a LAWFUL ORDER is" [a crime]
fixed it for you.
Using force to make someone comply with unlawful orders is also a crime. Not honoring your oath is a crime. Committing crimes while armed or under the color of authority is an additional crime.
I'm not gonna give you no I.D., I ain't did nothing wrong
Why wasn't this guy tazed for attempted murder of the English language?
He was in Alabama, he was probably correcting the officer's grammar.
Ha!
Nope. It was for violating the civil rights of the flowers by blasting them with a water hose. Remember Watts? Alabama?
I had the water hose in my hand
'Scuse me while I whip this out...
^Actual LOL
I imagine he was pissed someone called the cops on him, understandably so.
But then things escalated and he decided it was a hill worth fighting on.
So off to court they go, and money will be paid. At least that is what my cynical side tells me.
That's why the police force hires well paid and well trained professionals. I guess the good citizens will be paying for this 'education'.
I'm sure cops knew he'd be released and the charges would be dropped. They arrested him because the process is the punishment.
Cops should get some leeway since they do make honest mistakes. But this kind of intentional false arrest should be punished as a criminal act.
Cops never commit crimes, didn't you know that? What kind of communist are you? Don't you bAcK ThE bLue?
Maybe not criminal - but at least a mandatory blot on service records and a forced apology.
If not criminal, at least a permanent end to their career in law enforcement.
FBI material they are.
You're kidding right? Apologizing could get a cop fired.
Just give them your fucking name. He was looking for a confrontation and he got it.
Why should he? What other rights are you willing to let be eroded away because you can't deal with confrontation?
He was on private property, and police had a reasonable suspicion that he was trespassing or attempting a burglary.
You don't have a "right" to remain anonymous in this case.
Bullshit. I have never heard of any burglar watering someone's lawn. Have you?
Maybe a cousin of the Wet Bandits from
Home Alone?
Saying that you are there to "water the flowers" seems like an excellent cover story for a burglar. Meaning, by itself, it means nothing.
He had a fucking garden hose and was actually watering the lawn. What more do you want, a notarized permission slip? What good would showing ID be without a notarized permission slip?
It would allow the cops to do their job by investigating a suspicious person on private property.
Suspicion in not a crime.
But suspicion is sufficient for cops to demand identification.
And refusing to provide identification when cops have reasonable suspicion is a crime in many states.
You are just going to keep doubling down about being wrong on that point of the law
I'm afraid it's you who is willfully ignorant. Go look it up: Google is your friend.
Yes, he was on private property. No, they did not have a reasonable suspicion even for trespassing, far less for attempted burglary.
He didn't attempt to remain "anonymous". But he (and we) DO have a right not to be accosted by police for no reason. Despite your apparent wishes, we do not yet live in a "papers-please" state.
Actually, yeah, there's a fair amount of reasonable suspicion he was trespassing.
Thank God you are not a cop.
Thank God there are still many cops that take their jobs seriously, seek to protect home owners, and will stop people if they might be trespassing.
Key word here is reasonable
It is. And it is reasonable to suspect someone who is on private property in the absence of the homeowner of being a trespasser and/or burglar.
In most places, simple trespassing is not a crime. Its usually "Trespass after warning" or similar language. Was the property posted? Did the owner of the property or a manager of the property ask him to leave? No and No. So no suspicion of trespassing.
As for burlary - was he in possessions of burglary tools? No. Was he doing something illegal in furtherance of a plan to burgle the house? No.
The officers have a duty to investigate whatever crime they suspect him of and once those suspicions fall below "probable cause" they legally must let him go.
1. He did give his name.
2. No. If you're fucking with me while I am going about my lawful business then *you* are the one looking for a confrontation.
Investigating people hanging around a home while the owners are away is probably one of the primary tasks people want police for. That is, it's the job of police to determine whether he is there lawfully in the first place, and for that they need his full identification.
If you don't want police to even investigate such simple, commonplace concerns, we might as well abolish police altogether.
How would having his full name and address help them determine whether he is there lawfully? Do the police keep a list of who is friends with whom and therefore might be watering their flowers?
They check for prior burglary convictions.
It also means that if there is a burglary, they can follow up with this person.
So, we should keep track of everyone who walks by a jewelry store in the course of a day, because you never quite know who they need to follow up with in case of a burglary at the store.
No, just of people who may be trespassing on private property.
Police can't arrest people for "maybes"
All police arrests are for "maybes" because guilt or innocence is always determined by courts, not by police.
In any case, that's not what happened here. Jennings was stopped and asked to identify himself and explain his actions. He refused. At that point, police likely could arrest him under Alabama law.
Can he have "prior burglary convictions" and still be there "lawfully"? Of course. One does not preclude the other. So the cops and your logic still suck in this instance.
Sure. But if the person has burglary convictions, the cops would investigate much, much more thoroughly.
But he could still be there lawfully, right. Glad you agree
Well, in retrospect, he clearly was lawfully there. How is that relevant to whether police can stop him and require identification?
So... prior conviction is evidence of current crime? Pretty sure that won't make it into court.
How commonplace is it for a burglar to water someone's lawn?
Oh wait, he was watering while black.
This is what is irritating as hell to me. This situation is why we have police. If my neighbor sees a suspicious person on my property and calls police, I want the police to be able to investigate.
They did investigate, and found a guy with a watering hose in his hand, watering flowers in a yard.
If my neighbor doesn’t know me well enough to call me or even know MY name, I want them to mind their own business lest they might call the cops on me or my friends or my family because they don’t have a single clue as to who actually belongs on my property.
The pastor here is probably way more of an authority concerning what’s suspicious or not on that man’s property than the woman who made the call since she didn’t even know the name of the owner or the fact that the vehicle in the driveway belongs to the owner. She was not helpful at all here.
Why can't they just simply comply?
(licks boot)
> Just give them your fucking name.
He did give them his fucking name even though *he wasn’t legally required to*. Giving them his fucking name was one of the FIRST things he did in the damn video.
> He was looking for a confrontation and he got it.
He was watering plants for his neighbor. That’s not him looking for a confrontation.
He is clearly guilty of contempt of cop, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. (BTW, what is the penalty for contempt of cop, and are there degrees of the crime?)
That having been said, unless he was looking for a confrontation, and hopefully a lawsuit opportunity and 15 minutes of fame, the smart thing to do would have been to give them your name and DoB. Unless you are driving (and have to have your license with you), you do not have to have ID on you and "display your papers" on demand.
Unless you are driving (and have to have your license with you), you do not have to have ID on you and "display your papers" on demand.
That actually varies from state to state. Many states have "shall identify" laws, where you can be arrested for failure to produce ID. Even those laws says that cops need reasonable suspicion, but that doesn't matter since cops are not expected to know or follow the law.
Ignorance of the law is
notan excuse, if your job is to enforce it.I'm no state is failure to produce ID illegal (except in a limited sense where a driver's license is required while operating a motor vehicle on public highways).
It is not mandatory anywhere in the US *to even have an ID*. We are not a 'papers, please' culture and should fight every attempt to make us one.
bingo, sir, your comment is refreshing in the face of all these ignorant ones so full of boot polish.
Many states have passed stop-and-identify laws, which permit a law enforcement officer to stop a person suspected of criminal behavior and ask for identification. Failure by the person stopped to respond is a violation of the law and can lead to arrest and criminal charges.
That is correct. But if you don't have an ID and cops have cause to identify you, they can detain you until they have identified you. It's your choice whether to suffer that inconvenience or not. Most people choose to carry ID and provide it when asked, because the alternatives are too inconvenient.
Not so. Failure to ID is a secondary charge in virtually every state. There first MUST be RAS of a specific crime, not a generalized, "gee, we don't like this situation."
Qualified Immunity simply because the police didn't know they did not have the right to ask for his last name or some other such nonsense
It's not even that. Arresting people on false charges, knowing the charges will be dismissed, is standard procedure when you piss of the police. No QI needed.
Supreme court has already ruled on it therefor Qualified Immunity will not come into play. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this case.
Love watching the Freedom gang fuss over rules and regulations in favor of mindless state power.
Let's not fool ourselves, we all know why.
Yes, and that is perfectly reasonable.
First of all, he is on someone else's private property, which is the reason police were called. To determine whether he is there legitimately, they need to determine his identity. He can do that quickly by showing ID, or he can have himself detained while they try to determine his identity in some other way. His choice. Almost everybody will choose to just show ID.
The only thing that is scary here is that someone who claims to be a police officer thinks that this isn't how policing is supposed to work.
It's certainly reasonable for a neighbor to call the police if they see someone on a neighbor's property. That's pretty much the only thing in your analysis that *is* reasonable.
Under Alabama law, he's required to provide that information "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." But he wasn't in a public place, so he wasn't in violation of that law, and even if he were in a public place, it strains credibility that one might "reasonably suspect" a felony or other public offense because he was watering flowers.
"To determine whether he is there legitimately, they need to determine his identity. He can do that quickly by showing ID, or he can have himself detained while they try to determine his identity in some other way. " As I said before, there's no way that information would actually help them determine whether he is there legitimately. And following your suggestion, as soon as they determine he's there legitimately (and that happened as soon as he told them he was there watering flowers, or at the very least when the neighbor who called the cops talked to them), they have *no* legal justification for detaining him. And no, saying "Lock me up and see what happens, I want you to," is not a legal justification for detention or arrest.
So? That law defines some conditions under which police may stop, detain, and identify you. Those are not the only conditions, there are other conditions.
They can check for prior burglary convictions. Furthermore, they have a name to follow up on if the house does get burglarized.
I think you're wrong. But, hey, go on believing what you want.
I, for one, have no problem with police asking people who come onto my property for identification while I'm on vacation. If that's not the law, it should be.
Read your own comment. Reasonably suspects. they had no reasonable suspicion. they had a karen who called and a guy watering. On other words squat.
Yes, they had reasonable suspicion: a neighbor reported a stranger on someone's lawn, someone who is on vacation. That's enough to reasonably suspect trespassing or attempted burglary.
Then the neighbor told them that she now recognized the guy and he was legitimate, but the police proceeded with the arrest anyway. That changes the case from investigating on reasonable suspicion to _knowingly_ carrying out a false arrest to punish the guy outside of legal channels.
I have no sympathy for either side here, but it's the cops who broke the law.
They arrested him not for trespassing but for failing to fully identify himself, which he is required to do under Alabama law.
1) Brown v Texas clearly states that the officers have to have reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime or is committing a crime. SCOTUS unanimously trumps your understanding of Alabama law.
2) He did give his name. You threw in the term "fully identify" which indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. That phrase alone would be unenforceably vague. (does he have to give a drop of blood for DNA?)
> which he is required to do under Alabama law.
Cite the law
> a neighbor reported a stranger on someone's lawn, someone who is on vacation.
And?
> That's enough to reasonably suspect trespassing or attempted burglary.
No, it’s not. There are a variety of possible reasons for someone to be on that property other than trespassing or burglary. The caller really didn’t have a clue as to who the homeowner really was or who is or isn’t authorized to be on the property.
A non-anonymous reporting party with a modicum of supporting evidence establishing they have actual knowledge literally establishes reasonable suspicion. An identified neighbor who calls about a suspicious person on their neighbor's property fits well within this.
You are incorrect. The police need to suspect you of committing a crime - being suspicious isn't a crime.
Brown v Texas, they caught a guy in an alley, in a high drug crime neighborhood walking away from another guy and SCOTUS unanimously said "suspicious" isn't enough.
> A non-anonymous reporting party
> An identified neighbor who calls about a suspicious person on their neighbor's property fits well within this.
The caller refused to identify herself when the police asked her for identification but the police just took her word for it.
He chose to put the cops in a difficult position. They got the phone call so they had to follow up. Suppose they had accepted his statement and drove away. Then he broke into the house and killed someone. Do you think ANYONE would defend the police for leaving him there?
Once the neighbor fessed up with her "oops", then they should have let everything drop. Until then, they didn't have any good options.
re: your hypothetical - Suppose he pulled out his ID, the police look at it then drive away and he later breaks into the house and kills someone. That scenario is legally and morally indistinguishable from your hypothetical. Yet no reasonable person would blame the police.
For exactly the same reason, no reasonable person should blame the police in your hypothetical. We are not a 'papers please' culture - that's not how our system works. The police had to have reasonable suspicion of a crime to demand his ID - and they didn't.
Yes, they did. The owners of the house were on vacation, and the guy was on their private property. It is perfectly reasonable for police to ask for ID in such circumstances.
As a home owner, that's what I want police to do.
Trespass requires notice...
Was the property posted?
Did an owner or caretaker give warning?
No and No. so no trespassing violation.
Burglary? Did have tools? No! Did he do something illegal in furtherance of burglary (steal a car for get-away, break a window or otherwise damage the property?) No.
> The owners of the house were on vacation, and the guy was on their private property.
The OWNER (!) didn’t call the police
> It is perfectly reasonable for police to ask for ID in such circumstances.
WHAT would getting his ID actually prove concerning his right to be there?
> As a home owner, that's what I want police to do.
Im a homeowner and I don’t want cops like that anywhere in my city and I don’t want that neighbor that called the cops either. They were all being stupid. Stupid cops and neighbors are a dangerous thing to have around.
> He chose to put the cops in a difficult position.
No he didn’t.
> They got the phone call so they had to follow up.
They did follow up. They met a man that said he was there to water plants for his friend and neighbor and he was clearly watering plants as they arrived. That man had also told them from the onset as to who he was and where he lived. Mystery solved.
> Until then, they didn't have any good options.
They could and should have left right after he said that he was there to water his neighbors plants and it was super-duper clear and obvious that he was watering plants.
> Yes, and that is perfectly reasonable.
The reasonable thing to do is call the OWNER OF THE PROPERTY and inform them of your concern. If you don’t know them well enough to do that then you don’t know them well enough to say who does or doesn’t belong on their property.
> he is on someone else's private property
The owner of the property did not call the police.
> To determine whether he is there legitimately, they need to determine his identity.
First off, he told them who he was and where he lived. Literally the first thing he did upon first contact. Secondly, knowing his identity does not inform anyone of whether he is there “legitimately” or not. If you really want to know if he’s there legitimately, you need to CALL THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY and ask them.
> He can do that quickly by showing ID
First off, showing his ID doesn’t prove anything and secondly, nobody is obligated to prove anything to the police. The police and state have the burden of proof. The police need evidence of a crime to make an arrest. His unwillingness to give them his ID card is not evidence of a crime.
> Almost everybody will choose to just show ID.
Almost everyone would give up their wallet if a robber demands it at gunpoint. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to not give up your wallet when confronted by an armed robber. The police had no legal authority to demand his ID or arrest him when he refused to give it up. That’s why his charges were dropped straight to the ground.
> The only thing that is scary here is that someone who claims to be a police officer thinks that this isn't how policing is supposed to work.
That’s because this isn’t how policing works. What the police did here was a 4th amendment violation.
If the quoted exchange between the cops and the watering reverend are accurate, then I think reverend used very poor judgment. The cops seemed to be reasonable given the circumstances, and the gardening pastor seemed to be looking for a fight.
In life, whether a peon or a prince, "don't be an asshole" seems to be fairly good advice.
Your don't be an A-hole comment applies to the thugs who had zero authority to demand ID. try learning the law.
Not only did they have reasonable suspicion, as a homeowner, that's what we want police to do when we are on vacation. Neither I nor the people who look after my home would have any problem showing ID under such circumstances.
Fortunately, this is ultimately something that can be decided locally. If you want to get together with a bunch of nutcases and live in a community where police don't do this sort of thing, be my guest. The rest of us will continue to demand that police do their job.
This won't be decided locally because its a federal civil rights violation.
> Not only did they have reasonable suspicion
They did not have reasonable suspicion of anything.
> as a homeowner
I’m a homeowner. If I’m going on vacation, I’m asking someone to house-sit for me. I don’t want that person to be harassed. If you don’t have the ability to call me and tell me about your concerns dealing with my property then that should be a hint as to whether anything that goes on with my property is your business. If someone comes onto my property making demands, then they are not welcome. My house is my castle. I’m the only one to make demands on my property.
> this is ultimately something that can be decided locally.
These cops violated his 4th amendment constitutional rights. That’s a federal lawsuit.
> The rest of us will continue to demand that police do their job.
what the police did here literally wasn’t their job. That’s why the charges against the pastor were dropped and he’s going to sue them.
Jennings was then handcuffed by the officers. Shortly after he was handcuffed, one of Jennings' neighbors approached the officers and identified herself as the woman who placed the original call to the police. The woman told officers that she had misidentified Jennings, and reported him as a suspicious person. "They are friends, and they went out of town today, so he may be watering their flowers, it'd be completely normal," she said. "This is probably my fault."
----------------------------------------
So even after the woman who called , specifically told the police that she now recognized the man and had made a mistake earlier ... they STILL arrested him ?
For the crime of standing up for his rights to a LEO. That, many times, carries capital punishment.
There is a genre of Black-victim videos on YouTube that I used to watch until they started getting repetitive. This story should be up pretty soon.
Yeah, you wallow in self-righteous indignation day in and day out.
In reality, for police to ask for identification is both legal and reasonable under the circumstances, as is detaining someone who refuses to provide such identification.
Yes, police have special powers, granted to them by the citizens and their communities. Ignore that fact at your own peril.
complete baloney. they have zero legal authority to demand ID without what is known as RAS. Go look it up.
Police had reasonably articulable suspicion.
I guarantee you: any jury of homeowners would clear police, because we want police to ask and investigate when there is someone on our property while we are on vacation.
Nope, it won't even come up. Judge will never let that question get to the jury because its not a question of fact.
A telephoned complaint is not reasonable suspicion. The officer must investigate if there is a crime first. They will not be able to articulate what crime they suspected him of - so the jury will be instructed not to debate that.
What the police could have done or should have done is take his picture and told him to have a nice day.
Show ID, explain why you are there and the situation is de-escalated....but the pastor unwisely chose a confrontation with the police officers and the result was a trip to the pokey.
No, the victim of the criminals in blue wisely decided to stand up for his and your 4A rights.
There is nothing unreasonable about police asking the guy to identify himself under the circumstances: he was on private property belonging to someone else, someone who was on vacation.
> but the pastor unwisely chose a confrontation with the police officers
The police are the ones who confronted him. It was his right to not give his identification.
The law says in a public place; that is defined in Alabama Criminal Code § 13A-11-1, and does not mean public vs private property. Most jurisdictions find the front of someone's house to be a public place-people don't need explicit permission to walk up the driveway and ring your doorbell. One could argue the officers didn't have RAS when they questioned him, but the caller only came out after he was in handcuffs.
> The law says in a public place; that is defined in Alabama Criminal Code § 13A-11-1, and does not mean public vs private property.
The law says that there has to be reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime. There’s no RAS here to speak of.
> Most jurisdictions find the front of someone's house to be a public place-people don't need explicit permission to walk up the driveway and ring your doorbell.
Just because people don’t need your specific permission to knock on your front door doesn’t make your land public property. You can TRESPASS people from knocking on your door. You can’t trespass people from walking on the sidewalk.
> One could argue the officers didn't have RAS when they questioned him, but the caller only came out after he was in handcuffs.
What difference does that make? Someone calling the police because they have a feeling that they don’t recognize someone doesn’t make for reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Gotta love all the John Galt's coming for the pastor watering the flowers.
Not so many snake flags for this guy, huh?
Gotta love all the John Galts coming for the pastor watering the flowers.
No snake flags for this guy, huh?
If he failed to produce his ID and that was the end of the story, the officer had good cause to arrest him. But once the lady came forward to clear the guy, the cop should have just exercised good judgment and walked away. Or at least verify that she was indeed the neighbor and did call the 911 operator. Not the best move to make, especially in this current political climate.
But this sort of illustrates the problem between the police and the American people. Why call the police on a man who's watering a plant, even at someone else's home? The lady couldn't call her friends to find out if they hired someone to water their lawn after they went away?
I live in an apartment and one time a black kid tried to use the railing on our veranda to climb up to the one above. We didn't call the cops on him. "Oh well, maybe he lives there and forgot his keys or it's his friend's house". That's it. Nothing else happened. The kid tried a few times and just gave up and walked away.
And the pastor, for no reason, failed to produce ID. 99% of people in that situation would have. "My name is this and that and the house owners asked me to water the lawn" The cops calls the home owners, and bada bing, it's over. Prior to the lady coming forward to clear him, he had no reason to believe the guy's story.
If I'm being asked questions by a government official with a gun, I'm going to let caution tip the scale over my rights in that moment. My rights aren't going to magically shield me from flying bullets. I would at minimum obey his commands while raising objections over my rights being violated. I could always file complaints later. Maybe I'm right, maybe he's right, but I'm not going to escalate what should be a mundane situation.
I'm not white and I was pulled over. My mom, who speak nil English, was pulled over maybe thrice. We are all still alive. Nothing happened. Theoretically I could be shot down lie Philando Castile, but that's not common. Black people call cops a lot, I see it in my own neighborhood.
The neighbor called the police on a "suspicious person and vehicle". She saw someone drive up to the house and disappear either into the backyard or the house. There is no indication that she saw him watering any flowers.
Perhaps. But failure to identify to a police officer is itself against the law in many states, and that violation of law is not undone by the neighbor coming forward.
In fact, in most states, you are required by law to identify yourself in such circumstances.
Dumb comment sonny, He had no legal obligation to ID himself to the thugs. In fact in zero states are you required to ID yourself under these circumstances.
Yes, he had a legal obligation to ID himself to police because police could articulate a reasonable suspicion.
Maybe thugs like you don't like that sort of thing, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of home owners want police to do exactly what they did, even if police stop and ask someone who is there as a friend.
"because police could articulate a reasonable suspicion."
you keep posting this but I don't think you really understand what it means. Is is NOT "RAS" in of itself. It is RAS of a specific crime that has, or will be, committed.
So... it's put up or shut up time... WHAT "specific crime" (meaning one you can articulate) is there in this scenario. Do the police have a reasonable suspicion that a specific crime has already been committed? Do they see burglary tools, or other such actions as peering in windows, or shaking door knobs that lead them to believe that a specific crime of burglary is going to be committed?
Suspicion is not a crime. In virtually every state it is not sufficient to legally demand an ID from a citizen. You really need to learn that lesson.
Trespassing and burglary.
But there was obviously neither a crime of trespass, nor a burglary taking place.
The simple reality is that the government does not have the right ot invade private property and harass people there without reasonable cause. There was obviously not any reasonable cause. Simply seeing someone they don't know isn't a stranger to the property is not reasonable cause. Simply having a report that someone is there, is not reasonable cause.
End of the day, there isn't even arguable reasonable cause here. There's no QI, just assault, false imprisonment, and a racial-hatred uplift. The soon-to-be-ex-cops are going to jail.
Reasonable suspicion means an officer can detain (i.e. investigate) you if they have specific and articulate facts that you are have been, are presently, or soon will be involved in criminal activity.
Facts: the person was present on someone else's property and a neighbor reported the person as being a suspicious stranger. That is reasonable suspicion of both trespassing and incipient burglary.
Well, you're wrong. Not only is that legally reasonable suspicion, it is what home owners want police to do. And as a homeowner, if I ask someone to help me out, I also want them to be polite to police and identify themselves when asked.
Racists like you can't help but see everything through a racial lens, can you? Disgusting.
Trespass isn't a crime at all. There was no burglary taking place, that is an indisputable matter of fact. The police turned up, saw there was nothing wrong, asked the guy his name, he told them, that's the end of the police procedure part. The rest was a hate crime.
You're telling silly fibs about the law because you are a white supremacist and some of your white supremacist chums got caught doing hate crimes, it really is that simple.
Criminal trespass third-degree occurs when a person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully on any premises.
For police, it was sufficient to suspect that a burglary might be taking place in the future.
You are an ignorant jerk.
> the person was present on someone else's property and a neighbor reported the person as being a suspicious stranger.
The owner of the property didn’t call the police and some third party being suspicious doesn’t rise to reasonable suspicion of a crime. Being on someone else’s property, in and of itself, is not a crime and suspicion isn’t a crime.
> That is reasonable suspicion of both trespassing and incipient burglary.
There was no evidence of burglary and the homeowner hasn’t trespassed him. Not reasonable suspicion.
> it is what home owners want police to do.
I’m a homeowner and I wouldn’t want the police doing this ish.
> Criminal trespass third-degree occurs when a person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully on any premises.
Ok, and there has to be proof that the person is there unlawfully. They have to be trespassed from the property. The police cannot just assume that someone is on property unlawfully.
> For police, it was sufficient to suspect that a burglary might be taking place in the future.
What are you talking about? There was no evidence of a burglary. Objectively speaking, the police saw a man watering plants. That man also told them he was watering plants while he was clearly watering plants. They didn’t see him crawling out of a broken window.
> Yes, he had a legal obligation to ID himself to police because police could articulate a reasonable suspicion.
No, they could not. -
Go read Brown vs. Texas. You must be suspected of committing a criminal act.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648.
Clark Neilly is an embarrassment to the Cato institute. this is not even close to a close call. these armed thugs confronted an innocent man. when they could have simply waited for him to finnish watering the plants. Piss poor police work. They had no reasonable articulable suspicion of Jennings committing any crime. Hell's bell, these incompetent buffoons had no suspicion of any crime being committed by anyone, much less Jennings. thus they had no legal grounds to demand ID. they violated the man's 4A rights. I hope they lose their jobs , have their careers destroyed, and cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Thugs like you are an embarrassment to libertarianism, if you even pretend to be a libertarian.
He's lucky he's still alive.
NOYB2, was it reasonable for the police to keep him in handcuffs and arrest him after the woman who called the police told them that it was a mistake?
If refusal to identify is a crime in Alabama (I assume it is), then they certainly had cause to keep him in handcuffs and arrest him after he refused to identify himself. I have no opinion on whether it was "reasonable", and I frankly don't care either way.
For Goodness sake’s, if the police were as quick as they are around here, it was probably an hour and a half after the receiving the neighbors call that they arrived on the scene. If he really was breaking an entering he’s been gone.
The fact that a neighbor recognized the man (911 caller or not is Irreverent) should have cooled things off.
The fact that it did not concerns me. It reflects either a lack of flexibility or a officious demand for compliance that is out of hand.
This isn't about "cooling things off"; police and Jennings weren't having a lover's spat, they were having a legal interaction.
Jennings clearly violated the law by refusing to state his full name and address and became argumentative and belligerent about it. If you're not going to hold him accountable for his actions in this case, when exactly are you going to hold people accountable for breaking this law?
Alternatively, if you think the law is unjust, then we need to get rid of it; you're welcome to make that argument in the legislature. But handling laws you don't like by just ignoring them is not how a nation built on the rule of law can operate.
This is not like you, You are usually one of one of the people demanding for common sense here, it is odd so see you to being so pedantic and authoritarian.
The main issue that you seem to be worried about oddly, is the respect for authority in an apparently the non-violent situation, A priority which is way down on my list, Not being disruptive, theft protection and Providing security (literally, having someone ask the man who he is without having a 90 Year old woman do so is a big deal) are my top priorities.
A neighbor Word as much of as touch stone as a “Official” ID. Once the knew there is no cime going on They should’ve moved on. I for one, now feel more reluctant to call the police, if I believe they’re going to make a non-problem worse, no matter what, because of the need for authority/respect Or the pedantic application of the law.
Yes, it would be nice if everyone was polite and kind, But I am not a collectivist/Authoritarian enough to think that is owed, I don’t even expect the police to be always kind and polite (although that would be nice).
If the Law really is set up as you suggest it needs to be changed because it makes things worse. I want officer Andy Griffin, not Judge Dread in my neighborhood.
I think I'm quite consistent: I want laws to be enforced as written, even bad laws. Police and prosecutors should not attempt to do the job of legislators.
I really don't see any problem with police asking strangers on my property for identification. That's what I would want private security to do as well. But the legislature and debate is the right place to resolve such questions.
Well, I guess we just had different Ideas about what police are for.
I think that had assed Imposing of order and compliance in nonviolent situation’s is far beyond what’s needed, but it certainly should be at option for when things truly get dangerous.
But I do understand trading in others freedom for personal security, I just don’t like it.
PS: If you want your house to be secure in the manner you’re speaking of, you need to move to a gated community. It’s a bit expensive but, They can actually handle having a list who is allowed and isn’t on your property.
I'd be happy to go to completely private security... provided I don't have to pay property taxes anymore. As long as I pay property taxes, I expect police to try to protect my home from burglars.
I don't see what "freedom" you think is being "traded" here. By what principle do strangers have any right to walk on my private property?
But he did identify himself, so you're just ranting about imaginary issues.
He needs to provide his full name and address. "Pastor Jennings" with a refusal to provide his first name or address doesn't comply with the law.
Alabama Code Section 15-5-30 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.
He wasn't in a public place, as you've repeatedly had pointed out to you. You're clearly not arguing in good faith, and you're not even managing to follow your Aryan Brotherhood manual correctly.
For the purposes of the law and police interactions, a publicly accessible front yard would likely be considered a "public place", even if it is privately owned.
If it is not a "public place", then they can arrest the person on suspicion of trespassing and/or burglary.
Either way, they have the power to demand that he identify himself.
You made this about race, not me. Typical of modern racists, you try to hide your reprehensible views by accusing others of what you are guilty of.
Reasonably suspects.... that he is has/is/about to commit a crime.
They got there, observed, and saw nothing to confirm that he shouldn't be there, that he was prowling, etc. It's not his job help their investigation.
When they asked him, he gave his first name, and what he was doing. At that point they had NOTHING that would point to an actual crime. Trespassing is only a crime if you pass a sign saying no trespassing, or the owner of the property has asked you to leave but you refuse.
Hearsay is hearsay.
Michael Jennings gave his last name and his fairy-tale title: Pastor Jennings. He should have claimed a First Amendment violation, also, as he was interrupted while baptizing the flowers.
Go read Brown v Texas
The charges were dropped against the man. What does that inform you of the validity of the police’s actions here?
The problem with the situation is that the cops privilege one person's information (the complainant) over the other (helpful neighbor.) The problem for the helpful neighbor is that he basically admitted to being on someone else's property, and that property owner was unavailable to confirm that this wasn't trespassing. Cops really do not have many choices in such circumstances and while the idea of just dropping it sounds good, it is also the one most likely to come back and bite you in the ass badly.
Sure the helpful guy had no duty to be cooperative, and he wasn't. I suspect had he simply provided his name and address, the cops could have easily verified that information and established that he was not some total stranger to the neighborhood. That could have ended it. Had it been me I would have added the name of the homeowner and her phone number - let them call her and verify everything.
Mr. helpful neighbor might have been wise to considered that the cops' initial purpose for being there wasn't to hassle him, but to help the same person he was helping. In that sense they were both trying to do right by the owner.
Unfortunately, due to bad attitudes all around they rapidly moved past that consideration and instead wasted each other's time.
Under Alabama law (and the laws of two dozen other states), he is required to provide his full name, address, and explanation for his actions.
We want cops to operate according to the laws that are actually on the books, not according their or Reason's personal political preferences. If anybody doesn't like the law, they need to go through the process of having it changed.
As a home owner, I have no problem with what the police did, and I think someone who refuses to provide this legally required information should be fined so that they understand what the law currently is.
You keep telling the same silly lies. The law isn't as you say, and no-one believes you're a home-owner - a cardboard box and a special space under the bridge the other winos keep for you does not count as home ownership.
Translation: Davedave lives in a cardboard box under a bridge and is jealous of anybody who actually owns their own home.
Thanks for clearing that up.
> Davedave lives in a cardboard box under a bridge and is jealous of anybody who actually owns their own home.
I am a homeowner. You are full of shit. You talk so much about what homeowners want in your comments. Well the homeowner in this story certainly isn’t happy or thankful to the police here. I wouldn’t want these cops in my town and I’m a homeowner. They’d be just as likely to jack ME up on my own property because some third party that doesn’t have a clue called them.
I saw the tape. He was a jackass and literally asked to be arrested. After the neighbor came and identified him and said it was her mistake, they should have let the jack ass go. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, and it was easy to see that he was intentionally being uncooperative to provoke them.
Let's remember how Blacks lament that they have to give their sons The Talk. This guy asserts that he is a Pastor, but he is certainly violating the rules of The Talk. When so many Blacks have been wantonly murdered over the centuries for no sane reason, this Pastor does a huge disservice to other Blacks who have been murdered and whose families have suffered.
If he actually were a Christian, then he would have heeded The Talk and shown respect to the officers as fellow human beings. The irony is he claims he is helping his neighbor and that is exactly what the police were doing -- protecting that same neighbor. This Pastor did not judge these officers by their character as MLK said, but by their color, White or Blue.
I think they should have let him go, after giving him a citation and small fine.
Some kind of consequence is necessary to drive the point home that his behavior was not just rude, but in fact unlawful.
> after giving him a citation and small fine.
A citation and fine for WHAT? He hasn’t broken the law or any city ordinance. What part of charges dropped and incoming lawsuit do you not comprehend? The POLICE fucked up here.
> Some kind of consequence is necessary to drive the point home that his behavior was not just rude, but in fact unlawful.
What did he do that was unlawful? Charges were dropped.
"The Talk" is b.s. because it assumes that blacks face unusual dangers due to racism. In fact, most middle class whites and Asians would simply show their identification and go on with their lives because that's how mainstream American culture works; if people have a grievance with police, most of them are smart enough to understand that you don't resolve such grievances face to face.
You make a lot of racist generalizations. I think your motivations are that the pastor is wrong because he’s black and the cops are right because they were teaching an uppity black person his place.
Who cares how he talked to the cops. It's their job to not be provoked. If they can't handle it, maybe they should go be a courtesy clerk at a grocery store.
Why should he respect them when they are trying to violate his 4th and 1st amendement rights?
Those cops are acting under the color of law, so of course they should be treated as such: an armed agent of the state.
Those damn uppity blacks... How dare they take offense!
BTW, thanks for pointing out what a stupid racist you are.
What a crap-ton of shit.
> Under Alabama law (and the laws of two dozen other states), he is required to provide his full name, address, and explanation for his actions.
Alabama law requires a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before the can demand identification. No such reasonable suspicion exists here.
Maybe he was watering roses in a crappy manner with failure to prune.
So they wouldn't take his word that he's supposed to be there, but they listen to the white woman (who called them) and got her approval?
Wholesale Trade Printing
The fact that the article questions whether the cops broke the law is ridiculous.
They may not have broken an Alabama statute, but they did violate his 4th amendment rights, which is the Supreme LAW of the land. They had no business demanding ID. They can ask all they want, but to demand it is what's at issue.
I'm glad I'm in Texas where the police can only demand ID if I'm under arrest or if I'm the driver being pulled over for a driving infraction.
Ironically it was Brown v Texas that established that demanding an ID without objectively reasonable suspicion is a violation of the 4th amendment.
[ka-ching]
PAY THE MAN!