Georgia Man Sues Glynn County Police After He Was Arrested for Refusing To Give ID
A police incident report admitted "we had no probable cause" to arrest the man on loitering and prowling charges after he wouldn't give his name to officers.

A Georgia man is suing the Glynn County Police Department after he was arrested for refusing to give them his name. The arrest lacked probable cause, an officer later wrote in an incident report.
Brunswick, Georgia, resident David Smiley filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on January 2 alleging that two Glynn County police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures when they arrested him on the night of December 5, 2023, for loitering and prowling.
Smiley's complaint is backed up by an authoritative source, the police incident report of his arrest, which says a supervisor "took a second look at the report and advised we had no probable cause."
Smiley's arrest and brief jailing is a relatively minor incident, but it is yet another alleged example of a common violation of a core civil liberty: the right to go about your business without having to show your papers to a nosy constable. Even in states that have "stop-and-identify" laws allowing police to demand identification, officers generally can't do so unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that two Alabama police officers lacked probable cause to arrest an Alabama pastor who was watering his neighbor's flowers and refused to give them his ID. In Oklahoma, two officers tackled a father who was taking a morning walk with his son after the father correctly asserted that he wasn't required to show identification. In 2022, a pair of Florida sheriff's deputies were demoted for arresting a legally blind man who lawfully refused to give his ID.
"We filed this action to protect other citizens against police misconduct regarding unlawful searches and seizures and to redress the very constitutional rights of Mr. Smiley that were violated," says Roland Mumford, an attorney representing Smiley. "I hope this cause of action creates awareness to the public of the very rights that citizens enjoy that they do not have to produce identification to police absent reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or consent provided."
Body camera footage of Smiley's 2023 arrest shows that he was cleaning the light fixtures on the exterior of a grocery store with a broom at 12:30 a.m. when he was approached by two Glynn County police officers. Smiley told them he and his father were contracted by the store to clean the building exterior and parking lot, and he gave them a name for the company.
The officers then asked for Smiley's name and ID. When Smiley asked why, one of the officers responded, "loitering and prowling," noting that it was late and the store was closed.
"I'm working just like you guys," Smiley said.
The officers told Smiley he'd be charged with loitering and prowling, a misdemeanor offense under Georgia's code, unless he gave them his name and address.
When Smiley continued to insist that he'd done nothing illegal, the two officers handcuffed and arrested him.
Smiley's girlfriend was also on the scene, and when she asked what was going on, the officers demanded her ID, too, also accusing her of loitering and prowling. (The woman is not a party in Smiley's lawsuit, and her identity has been withheld due to privacy concerns.)
"Do y'all want me to call the person who hired him to do this job?" Smiley's girlfriend asked.
"State your first name and last name, please, as well as your date of birth," the officer responded.
Smiley's girlfriend refused several times to give her name, and the officer handcuffed her as well.
However, several minutes later one of the officers announced he was "un-arresting" her for medical reasons after she eventually gave her name and disclosed that she had an insulin pump.
The incident report of Smiley's arrest includes a supplement, written later the same day, stating that a supervisor reviewed the arrest and found no probable cause.
"Lt. Davis had took a second look at the report and advised we had no probable cause for Loitering and Prowling," the officer wrote, "Lt. Davis told me to go drop the charge and take Mr. David Smiley to where he needs to go. I went to the Glynn County Detention Center around 0500 hrs to drop the charge where I was advised by the booking staff that he bonded out."

The Glynn County Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
AT will be along any minute now to fill us in on the deets lacking here. I wonder how many will be relevant.
Why? Seems like everything unfolded properly here. Now, CJ - as usual - misrepresents the facts right out of the gate: "after he was arrested for refusing to give them his name."
That's not why he was arrested. He was arrested for loitering and prowling on private property. He refused to evidence that he had authority to be there - was hired to be there, in fact - so they took him in.
A supervisor quickly reviewed and - wait for it - upon identifying the guy was like, "Nah he's legit." And then he was immediately released. Gave him a ride back and everything.
Even limp-wristed Ceej admits it's a "relatively minor incident." What should upset you is how we're wasting yet more of the Court's time on frivolous lawsuits after trying to score a ticket for the Victim Lottery civil rights judgment.
This'll get punted.
A supervisor quickly reviewed and - wait for it - upon identifying the guy was like, "Nah he's legit." And then he was immediately released. Gave him a ride back and everything.
The police supervisor didn't say Smiley was legit. He didn't check his employment at all. He looked at the circumstances of the arrest and said there was no probable cause for the arrest to have happened.
And there was no ride back, since he'd bonded out by the time the arresting office got his instructions. So the review wasn't done as 'quickly' as you want to make it appear.
This'll get punted.
Remains to be seen.
Why do you always show up here having never done your homework.
Mr. Smiley was transported to the Glynn County Detention Center where he was released without incident. The Sheriff's Office was able to identify Mr. Smiley. A warrant will be drafted for Mr. Smiley for loitering/prowling.
Which the LT then bounced since - upon identifying him - made it very clear he was neither loitering nor prowling.
FFS you're lazy.
Which the LT then bounced since - upon identifying him - made it very clear he was neither loitering nor prowling.
Correlation, not causation, Copketeer. His name was immaterial to why he was released. Unless you really think he was let go because people named David Smiley are incapable of loitering or prowling? Are you really that stupid? Please let us all know that you are.
His name was immaterial to why he was released.
How exactly do you think they came to the conclusion he wasn't loitering or prowling, doofus? They verified his identity and his permission to be there.
Seriously, how much effort do you put into being this deliberately obtuse, ignorant, and pigheaded?
The police report supplement tells you exactly what happened, dimwit.
While under arrest, Smiley would be compelled to provide his identity, but neither the report nor the supplement indicates that was the reason there was no probable cause for arrest. You invented that out of thin air because it's impossible for you to accept that the police may be less than infallible.
The Sheriff's Office was able to identify Mr. Smiley.
How thick is your skull, seriously?
Correlation, not causation, Copketeer. Nothing in the statement indicates the reason they had no probable cause was due to his identity.
You didn't answer the question.
What a load of nonsense.
He doesn't have to identify himself. He doesn't suddenly become a loiterer or a prowler because he refuses to give identification.
He gave the company name, and the girlfriend offered to call the person who hired him. That should have satisfied any need to prove they belonged there.
But he doesn't even need to prove he belongs there. The cops need probable cause he *doesn't* belong there. Which they don't have, at all.
Those cops should be sent for remedial instruction on what probable cause is, or really, shouldn't be employed as cops at all.
So the question that needed to be asked by Mr. Smiley when asked for Identification was:
"So, How is my Identification going to convince or disabuse you of the idea that I am here illegally? Do you have a list of banned persons, or do you just run the person through NCIC and if they have no record, let them go about their way, but if they have any NCIC reports of crime, then arrest them?
Do you call the store manager at home to verify if the person is lawfully employed doing some activity for monetary compensation?"
What is unsaid here is that EVERY TIME an officer runs your name through NCIC, there is an appendment to YOUR NCIC file that you had an encounter with whatever law enforcement agency it was, along with the date and time. . .Making you look like a CRIMINAL. That notation stays on your NCIC file essentially forever.
The deets won't matter to AT anyway. He will just assert that police officers must always be obeyed.
And yet I've said no such thing here.
It's easier to bat down those straw men than the real thing, isn't it. You don't have the guts for more than that, do you. It might mean leaving your LOLertarian safety bubble echo chamber. And there's literally nothing in the world that could make you overcome your cowardice and do that, is there.
Gimp.
It's called POP, or "pissing off the police." When someone fails to obey unlawful orders it's standard procedure for police to unlawfully arrest them on false charges, knowing the charges will be dropped, with the process being the punishment. Quite often the arrestee loses their job, and more, while waiting for arraignment. Worst possible consequence for the cop is having to go commit unlawful arrests for a different department after a paid vacation, while taxpayers foot the bill for a settlement that includes no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the police.
And if you have watched any of the police misinteraction videos that populate Youboob, you would recognize that they are essentially endless. . Seems there are a lot of short tempered cops who would rather harass and jail innocent citizens. It seems that more people join the police these days to INTIMIDATE, BULLY or HARASS people than to help them.
Worse, they want you to immediantly assume the fasade of a cur dog, bow to their authority, kiss their A$$, Shine their shoes and come to their house to plant petunas.
No thanks. . this stuff all goes back to the Dave Grossman, "warrior concept" that teaches every police officer that the public are the enemy, and WANT to hurt police officers. While demonstrably false, they believe they are one small misstep away from being shot or otherwise killed. This stuff has got to change.
Funny thing, of all people Barney Fife gave the greatest recitation on what being a peace officer really is, or was in years past. How far we have fallen: (It is only about 2:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7P9XBbZN_c
Oh come on. Why didn't he have his papers? It's the police's job to make sure that there aren't any illegals invading the neighborhood, so it's the duty of every citizen to have their papers to prove to the authorities that they are proper citizens. We all have to be vigilant against the threat posed by the illegal invaders!
Great point.
I hope this is sarcasm.
Chempuff doesn't do sarcasm successfully. He's as stupid as he sounds.
Sure, lets assume EVERYONE is an illegal and empower officers to "Demand their papers" and to act as ICE agents and of course to treat every citizen as a potential lawbreaker. .. Geez, lets let them search everyons person. . Car. . and why not just have them go house to house, just to "make sure?"
What could possibly go wrong?
So you can be arrested with no probable cause if you refuse to identify yourself and don't have your ID but you can cross the southern border with no ID, get food, a cellphone, a Visa Gift Card and a free plane ride to wherever you want where you will be provided food and a place to stay for free. Got it.
And, what will be the disciplinary remedy? More training? Surely these officers will not be paying any settlement money out of their own personal funds, charged with false imprisonment, or anything of that sort.
They're probably printing out their boilerplate Qualified Immunity defense paperwork as we speak.
Sadly, that's my expectation as well. We won't fix this problem until individual officers start suffering direct personal consequences for these abuses.
The best practical solution I've heard is requiring cops buy their own indemnity insurance. Sure, police forces can pick it up, or raise pay to cover it, but being individual will make it show up in hiring decisions. It seems plausible to me that it would be easier to pass than getting rid of QI, but that doesn't mean it would be easy.
I would like to see the end of qualified immunity, but also a shift to a general "loser pays" tort system. That way if the cops abused you or trampled on your rights, you can sue the officers personally. But if you file a frivolous lawsuit you'll be responsible for the legal fees.
For me, the ending of QI is not contingent on the loser pays tort reforms. Both are good things, but the latter keeps the former from going off the rails.
Yes. Loser pays would go a long way to righting a lot of wrongs. But victim prosecution has to be part of the equation, otherwise DAs refuse to prosecute bad cops, and all people are left with is civil suits. They're better than nothing, but being awarded $10M from a cop who left you in a wheelchair is meaningless when he can't pay you. Thugs deserve jail.
The cop can be left with nothing but underwear. Take the house. Take the $75K 4X4 pickup. Take the big screen, Take the gun collection. Leave him nothing but underwear and the wife and kids to scream "Daddy, you suck!"
The departments need to pay only $X for indemnity, ie what a reasonably behaved officer would require. The abusive officers will undoubtedly be charged more, just like the DUI driver or the morons who have multiple accidents.
The insurance companies will do what IA can't or won't, drive the bad ones out.
There's no remedy needed. Everyone acted appropriately.
I would suggest two remedies:
1. Immediantly fire all of the "officers" with significant numbers of complaints. . .BRADY LIST them and forever revoke their ability to function as LE officers in any capacity.
2. Revoke Qualified immunity and add a provision that 5 to 10% of all judgements MUST be paid by the offending officer, without indemnification by the goverment entity that employees them.
3. Drop the Warrior problem right away, it is the over riding problem. Treating all members of the public as the enemy is not conducive to anything, and has already alienated a significant portion of the general public. See for instance Harvard law review: "LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM" by Seth Stoughton:
Here: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/vol128_Stoughton.pdf
People don't really have inalienable rights at all under US law do they. A persons "rights" are supposed to be protected by the law against infringement, but what we actually have is a system where your rights can and are violated at will, and the system will litigate after the fact, If the violation was warranted.
You have zero protection from the initial infringement. You have zero automatic recourse for the violation, and the system and it's members have zero responsibility so long as they were following policy, even if that policy is blatantly against settled law.
This is just a dumb idealized/fantasy vs reality argument, but I can't help but think it wasn't designed this way. In a sane world, a person would utilize their right to self defense against an unwarranted search or seizure. If you had money an officer wanted to confiscate under civil asset forfeiture, you should be authorized to claim ownership, and their authority to unreasonable seizure should only be able to be supported with a court order or due process of law. A person should be able to say, that without such a court order, any takings by an officer will be considered armed robbery, and the person should be authorized to responded to accordingly. Ideally this would also apply when police wanted to arrest someone, such as this man for failure to identify. Reality, the cruel bitch that she is, will tell you that any resistance to their authority, whether or not it will be adjudicated as a violates your rights later, is considered a crime. Any resistance against that authority is subject to death, and your family, friends, and countrymen in the jury box will gladly find you guilty for violating the officers rights to violate your rights.
"We filed this action to protect other citizens against police misconduct regarding unlawful searches and seizures ..."
Sorry, but this WILL NOT happen as a result of a lawsuit and CANNOT happen even theoretically. The incidents cited were already violations of the law, the Constitution and police policies and procedures. A common delusion amongst Americans is that making things into crimes prevents crimes. It may be true that putting a criminal in confinement or terminating him with extreme prejudice will prevent that criminal from committing some crimes, there is no evidence that a law on the books will prevent criminals from committing crimes. It might be true, however, that punishing police for committing crimes would prevent some police from committing crimes, at least while they're serving their sentences.
BUT sooner or later the judgements will start stacking up against municipalities with bad police management. . those municipal corporations will either be forced into bankruptcy, or hopefully their leadership will become cognizent of the police problem and make the needed changes to move policing back to the "peace officer" modality of the past. I was asking myself just this evening when did we get to the point that most officers are sleeved out with tats, wear tactical vests at all times, and at least half of the officers out there have attitudes as they know that can ACT WITH IMPUNITY against any member of the public they choose.
This idiocy has got to stop. . honest citizens are at more risk from out of control cops with attitudes than from REAL LIVE CRIMINALS.
Most states have laws requiring identification if requested by law enforcement.
Rtfa. Most states police must have reasonable suspicion to demand ID.
All states since it's a SC decision. They're supposed to have RAS before they even detain you.
It used to be the case that in some states police could arbitrarily demand ID and you would be committing a crime if you refused. But that’s no longer the case. Now they need to reasonably believe you committed a crime. That just means they arrest you for pissing them off and make up a crime. Because police are rarely if ever charged criminally for false arrest, false reports or perjury, they keep on doing whatever they want.
Everyone knows that if the cops would have left, and had this man then killed somebody, there would be thousands of people calling for this officers to be fired or arrested for not doing their job.
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'
How would cleaning light fixtures result in anyone's death?
The problems with this are:
a. Smiley will undoubtedly settle and the "agreement" will state that no one admits liability or responsibility.
b. The taxpayers and not these "officers" will be on the hook.
c. The "officers' will undoubtedly be promoted.
No, actually, I suspect that they'll tell Smiley to go pound sand. He has no case.
These cops know better. They are trained and educated in Constitutional protections we as citizens enjoy. They fully understand them. They are relying on fear, intimidation and ignorance. Until these suits result in personal pain for evil cops like this, these bogus arrests and harassment will continue.
What is it you think they did wrong?
Ah, perhaps if he had burglary tools, and not an extended handle broom to clean the lights off as he insisted he was doing. . .
Such explination should have disabused the officer(s) of the idea that criminal activity was afoot. . .
BUT NO! They want to prove they are the big bad bullies. . Submit to our "Authorta NOW" You will shine our shoes, Kiss our A$$ES and come to our houses to plant petunas. . . AND LIKE IT, Else we gonna git this situation under control and haul you off to the SLAMMER!"
They didn't suspect him of burglary. They suspected him of prowling and loitering.
Some guy in sweats is futzing around a shopping center after midnight. Let's not pretend that it's unreasonable for the police to verify what he's up to -- especially in an area where the property crime rate is dramatically higher than the national average.
Oh, these ACAB mouthbreathers will pretend precisely that.
You ever watch any of the police misadventure videos on YouBoob? There are thousands of them. . .watch a few and put yourself in their place.. .
Those videos and the fact that I have only found TWO videos of police officers that were true heros and did the right thing (stopping a sergeant from stomping a subjects head, and another ordering the release of someone who was being held for a NON CRIME. . )
Start with the Civil Rights Lawyer, John Bryan, then look at Audit the Audit, Lackluster Channel, Here's the Deal. . .spend a evening watching the most vile of police interactions gone wrong.
I'm sure there are. But watching them - and only them - is sure to give you a wholly jaundiced perspective.