absolutely no probable cause

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/08/31/alabama-black-pastor-arrested-watering-flowers-orig-dp.cnn

there is not a shred of probable cause, and the sad part is some actually view the officers actions as justifiable

[Spider-Dan]

[Dave Gray]

For now, I'll let the system play this out.  There are lots of cops out there.  This is only one bad incident with one person making a bad choice.  We'll see where it goes.

[CF DolFan]

I don't care to argue about this and think it will play itself out but the officer asked him for ID after he informed them who he was and he admittedly refused to show them. The probable cause was the phone call that reported him as not supposing to be there.  It was a misunderstanding up 'til then but then it went sideways when he refused to present ID. I believe that is the reason he was arrested and NOT for watering his neighbor's yard. Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job. If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal.  

Walking toward Jennings, Officer Smith told him that a caller said she saw a strange vehicle and a person who “wasn’t supposed to be here” at the house.

Jennings told him the SUV he was talking about belonged to the neighbor who lives there.

“I’m supposed to be here,” he added. “I’m Pastor Jennings. I live across the street.”

“You’re Pastor Jennings? ”Yes. I’m looking out for their house while they’re gone, watering their flowers,” said Jennings, still spraying water.

“OK, well, that’s cool. Do you have, like, ID?” Smith asked.

“Oh, no. Man, I’m not going to give you ID,” Jennings said, turning away.

“Why not?” Smith asked.

“I ain’t did nothing wrong,” the pastor replied.

[Dave Gray]

I hear what you're saying, CF, but the law doesn't work like that.

Existing isn't being suspicious.  The guy doesn't have to show ID when the cop has seen nothing to suggest the guy is a problem.  The cop can sit there and watch him or what have you.  The cop can run plates, can look at addresses, etc.  But you can't arrest a guy for refusing to show ID.  And there was no probable cause.  "Not supposing to be there" isn't criminal activity, so that's just not enough to go on.

I understand why the person made the phone call, but when the cop arrives and sees a guy watering plants and not, instead, breaking in the windows or scaring someone off, that's the end of it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't care to argue about this and think it will play itself out but the officer asked him for ID after he informed them who he was and he admittedly refused to show them. The probable cause was the phone call that reported him as not supposing to be there.  It was a misunderstanding up 'til then but then it went sideways when he refused to present ID. I believe that is the reason he was arrested and NOT for watering his neighbor's yard. Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job. If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal.  

Walking toward Jennings, Officer Smith told him that a caller said she saw a strange vehicle and a person who “wasn’t supposed to be here” at the house.

Jennings told him the SUV he was talking about belonged to the neighbor who lives there.

“I’m supposed to be here,” he added. “I’m Pastor Jennings. I live across the street.”

“You’re Pastor Jennings? ”Yes. I’m looking out for their house while they’re gone, watering their flowers,” said Jennings, still spraying water.

“OK, well, that’s cool. Do you have, like, ID?” Smith asked.

“Oh, no. Man, I’m not going to give you ID,” Jennings said, turning away.

“Why not?” Smith asked.

“I ain’t did nothing wrong,” the pastor replied.

The phone call did NOT establish probable cause.  Probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed.  Neighbor saying that someone they don't recognize is watering their neighbor's plants does NOT create a a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed.  Refusing to provide a police officer id does NOT create a reasonable basis for believing a crime may have been committed.  There is no general rule you need to carry or provide id to the police, exceptions exist when operating an automobile, entering government building etc. but there is absolutely no requirement to have or provide id to water plants.  

*IF* he was arrested for failing to provide id then the cop violated the law.  He is prohibited to make arrest on that grounds.  

As for the strange vehicle.  Unlike people, cars don't have constitutional rights. The police officer most certainly could have ran the tags.  Had the tags came back stolen or that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the owner of the vehicle *that* would have given rise to enough reasonable suspicion to demand id.  If the cop ran the plates and they were clean then Jennings rights were violated.  If the cop didn't run the plates not only were Jennings right violated but the cop is completely incompetent.  

It is not about taking everyone's word and never finding a criminal.  If when they arrived he was trying to break open a window then that is probable cause.  

This is just another example of a person bird watching while black, oops I mean barbequing in the park while black, oops I mean driving while black, oops I mean water plants while black, that somehow becomes probable cause of a crime.  

If this was a white person who was openly carrying an AR15, the NRA would be all over this as a violation of the second amendment.  

[CF DolFan]

I hear what you're saying, CF, but the law doesn't work like that.

Existing isn't being suspicious.  The guy doesn't have to show ID when the cop has seen nothing to suggest the guy is a problem.  The cop can sit there and watch him or what have you.  The cop can run plates, can look at addresses, etc.  But you can't arrest a guy for refusing to show ID.  And there was no probable cause.  "Not supposing to be there" isn't criminal activity, so that's just not enough to go on.

I understand why the person made the phone call, but when the cop arrives and sees a guy watering plants and not, instead, breaking in the windows or scaring someone off, that's the end of it.

The law works exactly like that. I took this from a Civil Rights attorney's page in Alabama since that's where this happened.

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.

The law requires an officer to have probable cause to believe you committed the crime for which you are arrested. "Probable cause" basically means a reasonable basis for believing you are guilty of the offense. What is a reasonable basis depends on the circumstances. The "probable cause" standard is significantly lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for conviction.Probable cause can be just the fact you are in a neighborhood with a high crime rate. It's a pretty broad spectrum.
https://www.alabamacivilrightslawyer.com/civil-rights-faq

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Here is the actual law....

2006 Alabama Code - Section 15-5-30 — Authority of peace officer to stop and question.
A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Two points. 

1.  The officer needs probable cause first.  The cop may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions ONLY AFTER first establishing probable cause that the person is committing or is about to commit a crime.  Refusal to provide id doesn't create the probable cause, the probable cause must first exist to even get to the asking the questions part.

2. The officer may demand he provide his name, address and explanation of his action, not ID. When Jennings told him his name, addresses and gave a reasonable explanation of his actions he complied with the demand in full.  This law does not authorize the demand for id, it only authorizes the police officer to ask the person three questions.   

[Spider-Dan]

At the point that the officer arrives on site, no crime is even alleged to have been committed.. Someone called and reported a suspicious person, which is not a crime.

At the point that police arrived and saw him watering plants, the MOST they should have done is say, "If you don't live here, we need you to leave" (and I'm not sure they can say even that much).  If it's not the homeowner calling about their own property, and there is no crime occurring when they arrive, police should move on with their day.  But this guy committed the only crime that really matters - disrespecting the police - so naturally, cops feel compelled to escalate the interaction.

[masterfins]

First I'd like to say there are plenty of good cops out there doing their job the right way.

But the internet is full of videos like this one where the cops don't even know the laws, and where cops escalate the situation instead of de-escalating the situation.  Too many cops like these guys get butt hurt because individuals will not give them their ID, when they legally don't have to give them ID.

I'm not a defund the police guy, but there needs to be much better training of officers, and there should be continuing education for ALL officers.  I have continuing education for my jobs to be done every year, and 90% of the stuff is all repetitive to me.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

First I'd like to say there are plenty of good cops out there doing their job the right way.

But the internet is full of videos like this one where the cops don't even know the laws, and where cops escalate the situation instead of de-escalating the situation.  Too many cops like these guys get butt hurt because individuals will not give them their ID, when they legally don't have to give them ID.

I'm not a defund the police guy, but there needs to be much better training of officers, and there should be continuing education for ALL officers.  I have continuing education for my jobs to be done every year, and 90% of the stuff is all repetitive to me.

The problem is their boss is defending their actions just like CF police don't treat this as a learning opportunity.

[Spider-Dan]

So as an example of good cops holding bad cops accountable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOegqWf4pM4&t=616s

The cop in question had just stomped on the back of a disabled elderly man, who was on his hands and knees after being commanded at gunpoint to get on the ground.  This stomp caused the elderly man's head to hit the pavement.  As the elderly man was being examined by paramedics, a bystander asked the cop for his card, to which the cop responded, "I don't have a card" and "They don't give us cards."  Fortunately, a sergeant nearby immediately corrected this blatant lie and told the bystander that they do, in fact, have cards, while writing down the offending officer's badge number on her own card and handing it to the bystander.  She also accurately recorded the events of the stomping incident in her official report, while the offending cop lied and distorted the events in his own report.

The saddest part of watching this take place is the awareness that this sergeant would be extremely lucky not to face prompt and severe retaliation from the rest of the department for her part in this incident.  Police in this country largely seem to act like a Old World gang, where loyalty to The Family takes precedence over any other code.

[Dave Gray]

CF, what probable cause does he have that's evidence of a possible crime?  What would the crime be?  He's watering plants.  That's not against the law.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job. If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal.  

These two lines tell us a lot about CF's approach to policing and why he should NOT be a police officer. 

"Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job."

Couple of problems with this.  First and foremost, the ONLY concern CF expresses is for the reputation of the officer, but absolutely nothing else.  For example he could have justified the basis for violating  Jennings's constitutional rights with "if they didn't ask for id and the house was subsequently broken into they would be at a disadvantage in the investigation."  Or he could have gone with "by asking id of everyone the cops don't recognize it prevents crimes"  He could have used either of these excuses instead.  Neither would actually justify the constitutional violation, but they would have indicated a concern for the homeowners property.  But like most cops, CF doesn't actually care about the people who he is paid to "protect and serve"  He does care about the reputation of this officer.    But as indicated in many earlier posts, CF and most cops don't care about their reputation of all people.  Just the folks who support heavy handed law enforcement against minorities.  As for the police reputation within the AA community there is no concern there. 

"If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal."

The police did not take Jenning's word.  But they did take the caller's word without question.  Wonder why?     Could it be because Jenning's is AA?  Jenning said absolutely nothing to suggest he was lying.  Police paranoia is a large part of the problem. 

 

[Phishfan]

CF, what probable cause does he have that's evidence of a possible crime?  What would the crime be?  He's watering plants.  That's not against the law.

Are they under water restrictions?