I'm supposed to be here. I'm Pastor Jennings, I live across the street. >> DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO. GO ON and run me up. Look, JUST HAVE A WHAT'S ALREADY NOT LOCKED UP? YOU'RE JUST IT'S ALREADY NOT LOCKED UP, DOG. YES, SIR. You didn't identify yourself to me. Do you understand what I'm telling you? No, I don't. You wait to watch how you want. Take me down, book me. Go do what you need to do. A man is watering flowers outside a home. A neighbor calls police and reports him as suspicious. Officers arrive. They ask who he is, what he's doing there, and where he lives. He answers every question. And then he's arrested. Thin blue lies, baby. This happened in Alabama. The man is Pastor Michael Jennings. He told officers he was helping a neighbor. He gave his name. He explained why he was there. But when officers asked for identification, he refused to show it. Police then arrested him for obstructing government operations. That charge was later dropped. But the case didn't end there. Because what happened next went all the way to the Alabama Supreme Court. So the question becomes, if you tell police who you are, is that enough? A ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court is drawing new attention to what police can ask for during an encounter. The court says officers may request physical identification if someone gives what they consider an incomplete answer when identifying themselves. This comes after the arrest of an Alabama pastor who was watering a neighbor's flowers. News 19's Dallas Parker explains what the court's decision could mean for you. Well, a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court is drawing some new attention to what police say they can ask for in the encounters with people who are on private property. The court's interpretation says officers may request physical identification if someone gives what they consider an incomplete answer when they are identifying themselves. So police in Childersburg in 2022 responded after a caller reported someone unfamiliar outside a home while the owners were out of town. Officers arrived to find Pastor Michael Jennings watering flowers in that yard. Now Jennings told police he lived across the street and was watching the home for his neighbors. But when officers asked for his identification, Jennings refused telling officers his name was Pastor Jennings. He was arrested and charged with obstructing a governmental operation, though that charge was later dismissed. Now the incident eventually made its way to federal court where judges asked the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify how the state's stop and identify law should be interpreted. At the center of this case is something called a stop and identify law. In Alabama, during a lawful stop, police can require a person to give their name, their address, and an explanation of their actions. For years, the general understanding was simple. If you provide that information, you've complied with the law. In fact, a federal appeals court looked at this exact case and said that Pastor Jennings had already done enough. They ruled police did not have probable cause to arrest him. But the Alabama Supreme Court saw it differently. Now Alabama Supreme Court says officers can actually request physical identification during a lawful stop if a person's response about who they are is incomplete or unsatisfactory. So that's up to that officer's discretion. The ruling interprets Alabama's stop and identify law and will guide how courts across the state will handle similar cases. In a 6-3 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that officers can go a step further. They said if a person's answers are incomplete or unsatisfactory, police can demand physical identification. Not just your name, proof of it. And if you refuse, that can lead to arrest. So now the question changes. It's no longer just, did you answer the questions? Now it's, did the officer like your answers? Because unsatisfactory isn't clearly defined. It's not measurable. It doesn't come with a checklist. It's a judgment call. And that judgment belongs to the officer. Which leads to a bigger problem. You can comply. You can tell them your name. You can explain exactly what you're doing. And the officer can still decide, not good enough. That's the shift. Not from law to lawlessness, but from objective standards to subjective ones. Because now compliance doesn't end the interaction. It just moves the goalpost. And once that happens, you're no longer just explaining yourself. You're trying to satisfy someone else's standard. >> Now this is not the law just yet. The Alabama Supreme Court says confirming someone's identity is a key part of an investigative stop and officers are not barred from asking for that physical identification if they believe the information provided is not enough. >> So ask yourself this. If the standard is whatever the officer decides is enough, then what exactly counts as compliance anymore? Because in this case, he gave his name. He explained himself. And the court still said, that might not be enough. Thin blue lies, baby. Hey, if you're still here, that tells me two things. One, you actually care about accountability. And two, YouTube hasn't scared you off yet. So here's the deal. If this video brought you value, do the YouTube things. Like it, share it, subscribe. That's how this channel keeps exposing nonsense without corporate filters. If you want to support the work directly, there's a know-your-rights guide and other resources linked below at kofi.com/thinblueliesmedia. And for the few of you who've asked, there's also official merch linked below. No hype, no drop. It's just there if the message resonates. However you support the work, watching, sharing, reading, wearing it, or just sticking around, I appreciate you being here. Thin blue lies, baby. >> [music] [music] [music and singing] [music] >> Internal review, paid vacation. >> [music] >> Taxpayers fund the explanation. Say officer safety real loud, real fast. Funny how [music] rights are a thing of the past. >> I'm not the hero. I'm not the guy. >> [music] >> Just pouring out the thin blue lies. I don't run. I don't fight. I just hit record and let them decide. [music] I hit record and let them decide. [music] >> [music] >> Now they'll tell you I'm the problem, that asking questions is suspicious, [music] that filming in public is interference. Ha, yeah, sure it is. >> [music] >> I'm not the [music] ammo. I'm not the crime. Just reading the law one line at a time. If the truth makes you nervous, that's not on me. That's what happens when the people finally see. >> [music]