Police Arrest Alabama Pastor for ( No Joke) Watering Flowers

They had a call from a neighbor about a suspicious person that is reasonable suspicion.

As I said go ahead and refuse to properly identify yourself to the police feel free, declare your constitutional rights and see what happens.

And again that you get so UPSET that you would be asked just amazing to me.

And when your home gets broken into and you get robbed of everything even though the neighbors called the police but when they arrived the person inside said he was you and he refused to show any ID so the police said OK and left you can be glad his constitutional rights were protected I guess.

If you ARE in Alabama you may want to read this don't know what your state law is but I would advise to check before you decide to defend the ground you are standing on if the police ask you to identify yourself. You may want to review the Constitution which does not say you have a right to NO search or seizure but only against UNREASONABLE search and seizure.



May a law enforcement officer detain you without arresting you?

If there is a reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain what you are doing or why you are in a particular area (often because the area is considered a high crime area).


If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are armed or may be dangerous, he or she may conduct a limited pat down of your outer garments for the purpose of detecting weapons. How long this detention may last before it is considered an arrest depends on the circumstances. Courts have approved of "temporary" detentions lasting over an hour. Sometimes police officers will be justified in detaining you while they obtain a search warrant.


The officer may ask you questions pursuant to an investigation. You have a constitutional right not to answer them, but if you refuse to identify yourself, the officer may have grounds to make an arrest.


At the conclusion of any temporary detention, the officer ordinarily must either arrest you or let you go.
https://www.alabamacivilrightslawyer.com/civil-rights-faq#:~:text=You%20have%20a%20constitutional%20right,you%20or%20let%20you%20go.

As I said you have proclaimed the hill you choose to defend hope you got some good lawyers or some good insurance to pay for what you lose in a robbery.

 

I'll go into more detail later, but your own sources refer to reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime. There as none here. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between, and refuse to differentiate between, an innocent man watering a neighbor's flowers and a burglar.

 

No yours fit mine more than the flower watering.

A suspcious person on private property. The police come and ask for ID, they refuse to the police just leave. You seem to trying to back down now is this your admittance that yes if the police have that suspicion they can detain you until they can satisfy themselves as to who your are and why you are there.........see above.

I didn't say he was obligate geeezz..................but don't ya think that could have settled the matter rather quickly and more pragmatic than giving the police even MORE reasonable suspicion as to why are you where you are?

I read the OP did you

" That’s when someone called the police on him, claiming an unfamiliar SUV was parked outside the neighbor’s house and that an unknown man was lurking on the property. " Watch the news report, she also told them that she believed the personS might have gone in the house but she could not see THEM now. Also that the owners were out of town. ALL making for a reasonable suspicion.

It was Jennings who not only got belligerent in the first 30 seconds when they were just trying to ascertain who he was and did he have a right to be there and then he tried to LEAVE and that is why he was handcuffed. They had every right to detain him at that point. And he was not arrested for trespassing or burlary THAT was cleared up, he was arrested because he obstructed them in doing their job. And no the body camera does not show the police saying he could not call his wife or him asking them if he could. He was being placed in custody as he pulled out his phone for whatever reason, but it was beyond.


Here watch it and tell me at what time point the police should have said OK and walked away.



So as I said feel free to do exactly like this man if the police come knocking on the door you are housesitting at. Me I think I would be civil and respectful and clear the matter up and thank them for responding to the call.

 

Not at all how it works. And what crime anyway?

 

You may not find the 4th amendment a big deal, doesn’t mean the rest of us need to surrender it.

 

I just read another story where police arrested a 17-year-old child with autism who was just standing around in the front yard of his family's house, because they saw him peeking through the windows of his own home and they felt it was suspicious. Maybe they thought he might have been trying to see if anyone was inside to burglarize the home. That and they may have suspected the child of being on drugs due to his abnormal behavior, since the child had autism.

 

I consider it a big deal but do not think showing my ID to a police officer conducting an investigation is some violation of it. Again why do you take such offense to it?

Does the 4th amendment protect you agains ANY and EVERY such inquiry and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES a police officer can question you? Did this man invoke his 5th Amendment right to the officer? Did he request a lawyer? Nope.

 

For them on a suspicious person call from a neighbor it is a reasonable suspicion of a burglary in process.

Geez why does this have to be explained to you over and over when it is all in the OP and link?

 

There was no reasonable, articulable suspicion of a burglary in progress. None.

 

Straw man. No one said that "under NO CIRCUMSTANCES a police officer can question you." No one. What we said was that legal detainment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that the detainee has committed a crime. This was not present. If a police officer can just detain anyone based on someone (who later backtracked and identified the "suspect" as a neighbor who was friends with the home owner) calling in and saying that they saw a car they didn't recognize, then the 4th Amendment is dead. Period.

 

There is no such law stating that when somebody called 911 that it becomes a valid reason. It could have been a prank call for all the cops knew. The cops had to assess on their own if a black guy watering flowers is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed or is about to. They failed to do their jobs. With that they raped the guys constitutional rights as is stated in the 4th amendment. It's a damn serious violation. Any American knows this, which means you're either not an American who isn't aware or you just support a black man losing his constitutional rights for the sake to support white cops. Take your pick.

 

Strawman, nobody has said they can’t question you. What they can’t do is arrest you for failure to assist in their investigation. I take offense to being arrested for not surrendering your rights, and you should also.
Had he invoked the fifth, you’d still think he should be arrested for failure to comply. And you don’t have to assert the fifth, it exists even if you don’t point it out. He shouldn’t have to ask for a lawyer when he’s complying with the law.
Too many cops are out there and have no idea what the law is or what our rights are.

 

Because you’re wrong, that’s why you keep having to repeat it. Watering plants does not cause reasonable suspicion of a burglary. Now a broken window and him standing near the house with a bag of loot would, but in the yard watering plants clearly doesn’t NOT.
If they found him climbing out the window, yea id agree. If they found him kicking in the door, I’d agree. Nothing in his action of watering a plant, is reasonable suspicion. Nothing.

 

Most cops don’t know the law. They think the law says you have to give ID if they ask. I’m not for defunding, I’m for actually training them in things other than how to beat a suspect into submission.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if most cops don't know the law. But when they don't know the constitution well enough and just end up violating it... (and top of my head, there were 3 of them in this instance)... it's time to get fired for not being able to preform at a utterly bare minimum. They can work as a security guard at a mall for all I care.

While I support the idea that people who need mental health when they show they are a danger to others or themselves, should be helped by professionals who can deal with that crap. Cops, as far as I can see, are there to catch crooks. Currently far too many cops need to deal with all these mental cases. It shouldn't be so. So those resources need to be relocated. That's what I see as "defunding".

 

And then of course post a false statement. They responded to a call about suspicious persons and tht they may have entered the house.

When you really willing to discuss on the basis of the actual facts then we can continue because nothing you say has any bearing here.

 

You can assert your rights at any time. He refused and then attempted to leave telling them they'd have to arrest him. They obliged him.

 

Calling in saying they saw persons but could not see them now and thinks they my have entered the house. Reasonable suspicion.

Try again.

 

LINK: 19-10075.pdf (uscourts.gov)

So yes, a 911 call is sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion. Like I said, they had every right to ask questions. They went to far when they arrested him. Note: The police asking questions =/= a suspect having to answer those questions. The Preacher in the OP had every Right to not answer them.

I am an American. And apparently I know more about the law, and our Rights than you do. So keep your race baiting comments to yourself. They don't apply to me.

 

There was a CLEAR one as I cited.

 

They had no evidence he was ever in the house or that he shouldn’t have been there. None. Zip. Nada. A 911 caller guessing isn’t evidence.

 

And now he’s got a lawsuit he’ll likely win. You have rights even if you don’t assert them.

 

A 911 call is not enough to arrest. But it is deemed as enough of a reasonable suspicion to investigate. IE: The cops had a right to ask their questions. The preacher had every right to refuse to answer those questions. The cops went too far in arresting the preacher. That is the violation that occurred. The questioning was not a violation of anyone's rights. The detainment was not a violation of anyone's rights. The preacher had no obligation to answer any questions. The arrest was the violation.

 

Yes you do, except for asserting your 5th Amendment. That one you actually do have to actively assert. Per the courts. I don't agree with that ruling. But it is what it is.

 

Same thing I’ve been saying