Michael Jennings, a Black pastor from Childersburg, Alabama, found himself in a tense encounter with police while watering his neighbor’s flowers. The officers approached him, demanding his identification and accusing him of acting suspicious.
A former police officer himself, Jennings was aware of his rights and refused to comply, explaining to the officers that he was “Pastor Jennings and lived across the street. He asserted that he was simply looking after his neighbor’s plants while they were away, even challenging the officers by saying, Lock me up and see what happens, as shown in body camera footage.
The three Childersburg officers—Christopher Smith, Justin Gable, and Jeremy Brooks—arrested Jennings on charges of obstruction, which were dismissed just over a week later. However, when Jennings filed a lawsuit against the officers, an Alabama judge dismissed it due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. This controversial legal principle shields law enforcement from lawsuits, even for unlawful arrests, unless a prior court decision has clearly established that a constitutional right was violated.
Recently, an appellate court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision, ruling that the officers lacked probable cause for Jennings’s arrest and allowing his lawsuit to move forward. Finally, Pastor Jennings will have his day in court and prove that wearing a badge does not give you the right to break the law, said Jennings’ attorney, Harry Daniels.
The three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals referenced a previous ruling to establish that the officers had violated established law, which negated their claim to qualified immunity. Jennings contends that he was not arrested for refusing to provide information but rather for not showing a physical ID. He points to the court’s decision in Edger v. McCabe, which ruled that an Alabama officer violates established law by arresting someone solely for failing to provide a driver’s license under Alabama law.
The three pieces of information mentioned in the ruling pertain to an Alabama law that only requires a person to provide their name, address, and an explanation of their actions if an officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime. Jennings complied with this requirement almost immediately, stating, I’m supposed to be here. I’m Pastor Jennings. I live across the street I’m watering their flowers.
The incident occurred on May 22, 2022, after a white woman named Amanda called the police, expressing concern over a suspicious vehicle parked outside her neighbors’ home. She described seeing a young Black male outside, despite the fact that the elderly couple living there were not home.
After Jennings was arrested and placed in the patrol car, Amanda told the officers she had made a mistake. He does live right there, and he would probably be watering their flowers; this is probably my fault, she admitted in the body camera footage.
The police discovered that the car in question did not belong to Jennings after running its license plate, yet they proceeded to take him to jail. One officer remarked to Jennings’s wife, Once we place him under arrest, we can’t unarrest him, despite Amanda’s acknowledgment of her error.
Initially, the lower court dismissed Jennings’s lawsuit, claiming the officers had probable cause for the arrest because he had not identified himself. However, Jennings had clearly stated who he was and why he was there within moments of their arrival. The officers wanted to see his ID to check for warrants, but Jennings refused, asserting, Oh, no, man, I’m not gonna give you no ID. I ain’t done nothing wrong.
Despite Jennings’s insistence that he was not doing anything suspicious, he was taken to jail, with one officer telling him, You talked your way into going to jail. The obstruction charge was eventually dropped, allowing Jennings to pursue legal action against the officers for violating his First Amendment rights and his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures and searches.
U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor had dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that the officers had probable cause since a savvy criminal could easily pick up a watering hose to use as a ruse. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating, While it is always advisable to cooperate with law enforcement officers, Jennings was under no legal obligation to provide his ID. Therefore, officers lacked probable cause for Jennings’ arrest for obstructing government operations because Jennings did not commit an independent unlawful act by refusing to give ID.