Police Arrest Alabama Pastor for ( No Joke) Watering Flowers

No, they can do it on private property, too.

If you're trespassing on private property, you can damn well be questioned and told to present ID.

 

The law I cite has nothing to do with private property. While I add the 4th amendment applies on private property too. And cops must comply to it.

But it's obvious you are far more loyal to cops than the the constitution, when regarding the rights of black people vs white cops.

 

Terry v. Ohio gives police power to detain and identify IF they have reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.

The 4th amendment applies.

In this case, a man is watering the landscaping for a neighbor. Where is the reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed?

 

The reasonable suspicion was the phone call by the neighbor saying there was a stranger on her neighbor's property. Are the cops just supposed to ignore it?

 

Trespassing requires specific conditions be met. Had this person been asked to leave by the owner or his agent, and he refused to do so? Did he have to breach a fence or gate? Were there signs posted?

 

Nope.
Cops need to investigate if there is indeed a reasonable suspicion.


You seem to suggest that when somebody find something a "reasonable suspicion" that cops are ordered to only view it as such without having a mind of their own. The caller's opinion is the beginnen and the end, an absolute, a final without any kind of grey area's to which cops must comply to. Above the law, above the constitution. Above all, even above the word of God itself. It is divine!!

 

Of course not. They need to investigate all calls for service.

They had not assembled any "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that any "crime had been, or was being committed". A phone call from a neighbor is reason to investigate. It is not, in an of itself, "reasonable and articulable suspicion". A brief investigation should have reasonably quelled any suspicion that crime was afoot.

In every state, police have the authority to ask anyone for their ID, but they do not have the authority to forcibly compel it unless they can compile "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a "crime has been, or was being committed". Our 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and our 5th amendment gives us the right to not answer any questions, or speak to police at all. Police do NOT have the authority to demand ID, or answers to their questions, from anyone for any reason. "Suspicion" is not a crime.

The police officer, in this case, was faced with a decision; whether to protect and defend the rights of the person they had detained, which they swore an oath to do. Or, to enforce the feelings and suspicions of the RP, which is not their mission. In this case, it appears the bruised ego of the arresting officer, caused by the detainee asserting his 4th and 5th amendment rights instead of complying with the officers demand that he give them up, did not allow him to do the right thing. He made an unlawful arrest, and his agency will face, and lose or settle, a lawsuit for it.

The irony is, the officer himself, nor the agency, will face any real consequence. The TAXPAYER, to include the detainee, will pay the settlement, legal costs, etc. The officer involved will continue to conduct himself in the same manner he always has.

 

Indeed. Cops wouldn't be able to hold a job in the real world. It's obvious.

 

This man is not going to prison or get charged with anything but Bill is on a personal quest on a message board to ensure that both happen some kind of way.

 

It's always the taxpayer, which is odd, because the rightwing want their tax money spent "responsibly" yet are quick to defend police in these cases.

 

Well, qualified immunity is a necessary component to police work. But, when they knowingly and intentionally violate people's rights, or compel them to give up their rights through deception or threats of violence, they should lose it and become individually liable.

 

Exactly and that's why the cops asked Jennings for proof of his identity and they were right to do so. Jennings was obstructing a lawful investigation.

 

He was under no obligation to give his identity. If Jennings was white you wouldn't be on such a crusade to put him in prison. It's over and the taxpayer is once again going to foot this bill.

 

If he was white, you would demand he be in jail for obstruction.

Do you really think Jennings is going to be able to prove he has PTSD from the incident?...lol

 

"Obstructing" is a physical act. For instance, if he had placed himself between the officer and another person the officer was trying to detain or arrest, for the purpose of preventing the officer's ability to carry out his duty.

Assertion of rights cannot be elevated to a criminal act. He had no legal duty or obligation to produce ID, nor to answer any questions. He was in a place he was legally allowed to be, engaged in an activity he was legally allowed to do. Neither his detainment nor his arrest were lawful.

He did not obstruct their investigation, they failed to conduct a thorough investigation, and to follow where that investigation led. Instead of determining whether there was crime afoot, they focused on this gentleman's unwillingness to participate in their investigation against him, and they retaliated with an ego driven unlawful arrest.

All this is evidenced by the charges being immediately dropped, the IA being initiated, and the lawsuit being filed.

 

So true. Any other person messing up their job in a massive way get kicked off the team. There is nothing odd about it. Hence my opinion that cops couldn't hold up a job in the real world.

 

Some people just support the 1950's way of how white cops behave vs black people.
That's how they got raised.

 

No, obstructing isn't a physical act...lol

Wish Jennings luck proving he developed PTSD from the encounter...lol

 

You're on a personal quest to ensure that blacks are above the law.

 

He wasn't "obstructing" anybody. That would mean he was interfering. He wasn't.
He just wasn't cooperating. Which he is allowed, since he wasn't arrested.
And they couldn't arrest him, since they had no cause to arrest him.
The cops didn't even have a probable cause.
Even when arrested, he got the right to remain silent.

A phone call isn't a probable cause.



In fact. The caller identified herself, and told the cops who the guy was who they were harassing, and called it her bad etc.
So that erases any kind of probable cause. The cops didn't back down.
Them white pigs just couldn't let a black guy go, because their racist ego's were too big.


So they arrested him on a bogus charge.
At that point, you could say he had to cooperate.
And after that it's all on him.
But that's never minding a bogus arrest violating his constitutional rights.
That violation trumps everything.

 

Yup there was no identifiable crime worth three police cars to mull over hell when has anyone who is a neighbor get in trouble for watering a few plants for someone who is out of town.

The police went waaay overboard on this non crime situation.

 

Yes, it generally is. Alabama statute Jennings was charged with is unusually broad:

Obstructing governmental operations (a) A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental operations if, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by any other independently unlawful act, he: (1) Intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function; or (2) Intentionally prevents a public servant from performing a governmental function.

Passive noncompliance is not obstructing. Assertion of 4th and 5th amendment rights is not obstructing.

 

And for the luls.
The woman who called the cops, saw her error and told the cops at the scene who they guy was / telling them it was her bad and it all checks out. So even if you could somehow claim a phone call is a probable cause, it got cancelled.

But them white cops were simply not in the mood to let a black guy go who was not "respecting" their demands.

 

Critical thinking is no longer a requirement for police candidates. This is why blacks who flame baited police keep on winning the suits.

 

Too much work. If an overly officious clown in a blue costume and carrying a government-issued badge asks you a question, you answer fully and submissively.