Michael Jerome Jennings v. Christopher Smith, Justin Gable, Jeremy Brooks, and the City of Childersburg

Talladega, Albama, personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a civil rights violation claim.

On May 22, 2022, Officers Christopher Smith, Justin Gable, and Jeremy Brooks of the Childersburg Police Department responded to an
SC-2025-0372 3 emergency-911 call in which a female had requested that someone check on her elderly neighbors' house. The caller conveyed that her neighbors had gone out of town and that she had observed an unfamiliar vehicle and a "younger black male" around their house. Officer Smith, who arrived at the house first, saw a black male watering flowers with a garden hose. In relevant part, Officer Smith asked the man if he lived at the house, and the man responded that he did not. Officer Smith explained that someone had called about a vehicle and a person being on the property who was not supposed to be there. The man replied that he was supposed to be there, that his name was Pastor Jennings, that he lived across the street, that he was looking out for the house while the neighbors were gone, and that he was watering their flowers. Officer Smith then asked the man if he had any identification, at which time the man became very agitated and stated that he would not provide any identification. Officers Gable and Brooks subsequently arrived at the house, at which time the conversation between the officers and the man escalated. After repeatedly refusing to talk to the officers and to properly identify himself, the man was placed under arrest and charged with obstructing a governmental function in violation of Ala. Code 1975, § SC-2025-0372 4 13A-10-2(a)(2).1

The charge was dismissed.

Motion for summary judgment granted.

Reversed by the 11th Circuit.

The district court certified its question regarding the interpretation of § 15-5-30 to this Court pursuant to Rule 18(a), which provides that this Court may answer questions from federal courts only when "there are no clear controlling precedents" and the answer to the question is "determinative of said cause."

The Code section authorizes an officer to demand and obtain a person's actual name and address. It does not allow nonresponsive answers. The language in the Code section does not limit an officer to demanding only an oral answer.