Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 20, 2026

Ruling in the case of a Black pastor who was arrested while watering his neighbor's flowers, the Alabama Supreme Court said police can demand to see identification during a stop if they are dissatisfied with a person's verbal answers.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This Alabama Supreme Court ruling is terrible. It's creating a law that didn't exist. Requiring people to show paper ID, when many people don't have them.

[image or embed]

-- Jan Ebbinge (@johntubeman.bsky.social) Apr 9, 2026 at 1:05 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article ...

... Justices issued the 6-3 decision last week after a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit about Michael Jennings' 2022 arrest asked the court to clarify whether officers can demand to see a person's identification under the state's "stop-and-identify" law. The minister was arrested when he declined to show Childersburg police identification.

Justice Will Sellers wrote that state law, "does not exclude from its purview a request for physical identification when a suspect provides an incomplete or unsatisfactory response to an officer's demand to provide his or her name and address and an explanation of his or her action." ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-04-19 09:46 PM | Reply

Ihre Papiere, bitte.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-04-19 09:47 PM | Reply

It will be a miscarriage of justice if Jennings does not win his suit. First off, he didn't match the description. The caller identified the suspect as a "young black male." Jennings was 56 at the time and looked the part.
Jennings identified himself as Pastor Jennings, told them where he lives and explained that the property he was on is not his but he had been asked to water the flowers (which he was in the middle of doing) while the home owner was on vacation. The interaction should have been over at that point since the cops had no reasonable suspicion that a crime had/was occurring.
If the cops were still generally suspicious then they could have continued to observe Jennings behavior or contact the caller. Demanding physical ID at that point was totally irrational.

#3 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-04-20 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Demanding physical ID at that point was totally irrational."

Two problems here:

1) Cops

2) Alabama

#4 | Posted by Angrydad at 2026-04-20 04:39 PM | Reply

sure to be overturned unless Alabama is in the Fifth Circuit. Is it? *looking* nope. WIll probably be overturned soon. Unless it goes to a certain judge in south Florida.

#5 | Posted by e1g1 at 2026-04-20 11:50 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort