Alabama Supreme Court seems to expand Terry v. Ohio

A recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling has vastly expanded police power in the state, holding that law enforcement can demand physical identification under the state's stop-and-identify law when someone provides "incomplete or unsatisfactory" answers to police questions about their name, address, and actions during a police stop, reported Reason. 

Although Alabama's law clearly requires some individuals to carry ID, like drivers and voters, the state supreme court's ruling seems to imply a general requirement for individuals to carry identification at all times—even when watering flowers. 

On May 22, 2022, Michael Jennings, a pastor who lives in Childersburg, Alabama, southeast of Birmingham, was approached by a police officer while watering flowers. Body cam footage shows an officer responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person and asking Jennings about the vehicle in the driveway and the house. "It's my neighbor's vehicle," Jennings answered. "Well, they're saying that this vehicle isn't supposed to be here, and you're not supposed to be here," continued the officer.

"I'm supposed to be here," Jennings replied. "I'm Pastor Jennings. I live across the street….I'm looking after their house while they're gone, watering their flowers.

Apparently unsatisfied with Jennings' forthcoming response, the officer then asks Jennings for "identification" while gesturing as if holding a card. "Oh no, man, I'm not going to give you no ID….I ain't did nothing wrong," Jennings responds. Agitated over the officers' continued requests to produce identification, Jennings begins walking away. A second officer places him in handcuffs as the men continue to argue and ultimately places him under arrest. 

A few minutes later, the neighbor who had placed the initial 911 call speaks with the officers. Answering whether Jennings has permission to water the flowers, the neighbor replies, "He may, because they are friends, and they went out of town today. So he may be watering their flowers." "That would be completely normal," she continues. "This is probably my fault."  

Under the Alabama law, an officer "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." (emphasis added.) But despite Jennings volunteering much of this information from the start and later clarifying his full name when asked, the officers arrested Jennings because he refused to produce physical identification—an item not expressly articulated in the state's law. 

Jennings was charged with obstructing a governmental function, a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. 

Although the charges against him were later dismissed, Jennings filed a civil federal lawsuit and accused the officers of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by, in part, arresting him without probable cause. And while the district court initially dismissed his suit, finding the officers were immune from civil liability, the 11th Circuit of Appeals disagreed. By reading the text of the Alabama code plainly, the appellate judges found that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Jennings because they were only authorized to demand three things: his name, address, and an explanation of his actions. 

"While it is always advisable to cooperate with law enforcement," wrote the appellate court, "Jennings was under no legal obligation to provide his ID." The 11th Circuit reversed the district court's decision to dismiss.  

But rather than simply reopen the case as instructed, the district court turned to the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify whether officers are prohibited under state law from demanding physical identification if they receive an "incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response" under the state's stop-and-identify law. In answering that question, the Alabama Supreme Court effectively overruled the appellate court, deciding that "Alabama law is clear—once an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a felony or other public offence, [the law] empowers the officer to demand that the suspect disclose his or her name and address in a format that would allow the officer to affirmatively identify the suspect," and that "the suspect bears the burden to completely identify himself." 

Although normal for a district court to ask for the state supreme court's input on legal questions, it is decidedly "not normal to circumvent an appellate court's ruling the district court didn't like," Matthew Cavedon, the director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, told Reason in a recent interview. But now, under the state supreme court's binding decision, the officers who arrested Jennings may now attempt to avoid accountability by claiming the arrest was in line with the stop-and-identify law. "Courts don't like accountability for officers when rights are violated," Cavedon continued. 

What's more is that the decision effectively gives a "ton of discretion to police officers," said Cavedon, leaving it up to officers and prosecutors to decide when and where a physical ID will be demanded and opening up "equal protection problems and concerns about discrimination." 

After all, there is nothing in the Alabama law that requires pedestrians to carry ID, according to an amicus brief joined by the Cato Institute in this case. But now, it seems, Alabamians better have their physical identification handy, or else face the wrath of unaccountable law enforcement officers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge Luttig: Justice Thomas' shocking and reprehensible ahistorical characterization of progressivism

The speech that Justice Clarence Thomas gave last week at the University of Texas could prove to be the single most important speech of political and constitutional philosophy that never should have been given.

Judge J. Michael Luttig writes, “As a conservative my entire life, I certainly wish Justice Thomas had not written and given the insidious speech.”

Judge Luttig continues:

Though Thomas’ unmistakable targets were Progressives and progressivism, his speech is far more injurious to Republicans, conservatives, and conservatism than it is for progressivism because it is demonstrably and inarguably wrong as to Progressives, but it is a siren song to today’s Republicans and conservatives. Webster’s Dictionary defines “siren song” as “: an alluring utterance or appeal, especially one that is seductive or deceptive.”

Oblivious to the actual history, but supremely confident in his ahistorical understanding of that history, Justice Thomas intoned as if reading from the Gospel that “Progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever…. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration was based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.”

Justice Thomas’ invidious accusation that progressives in America for the past century and a half up to this very day have been pursuing the same anti-democratic and anti-constitutional regimes as Stalinism, Maoism, Mussolini’s fascism, Naziism, and the like, is frightening, risible, and reprehensible.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Mangino talks about police sex ring on Law and Crime's Scandal

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie on Law and Crime's Scandal discussing a Texas Couple Sex Trafficked to Cops Out of Suburban Home.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: U.S. Supreme Court's Favorability Rating Hits Record Low

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 21, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court's favorable rating is at its lowest point since regular polling of the court began in the early 1970s. Last year, the court's favorable rating fell to 42 percent.

The modern highwater mark for the court was 1999, when, according to Gallup, the court was viewed favorably by 80% of Americans. Then the 2000 presidential election rolled around and the high court ruled along partisan lines to award the presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore.

The Supreme Court has never rebounded. The high court has come under scrutiny, while some of its members have become blatantly political. Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside-down flag over his home and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag over his vacation home — both with political implications. Justice Clarence Thomas' wife has become an outspoken right-wing political operative.

Adam Liptak and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times recently did an expose on the high court's secret decisions — rulings with no explanation or reasoning — an emergency docket rendering decisions in the shadow of the courtroom of the Supreme Court's building.

According to Liptak and Kantor, in 2016, several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, were eager to block a major initiative of former President Barack Obama. By a 5-to-4 vote along partisan lines, the Supreme Court halted the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature environmental policy. The decision consisted of only legal boilerplate, without a word of reasoning — thus was born the "Shadow Docket."

Could the shadow docket be the product of conflicting personalities at the highest level of government? Liptak and Kantor point out that Obama, as a United States Senator, was one of just 22 senators to vote against Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation. Obama said at the time, the nominee had "far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

As Liptak and Kantor pointed out, traditionally the Supreme Court had "handled major cases at a stately pace that encouraged care and deliberation, relying on written briefs, oral arguments and in-person discussions. The justices composed detailed opinions that explained their thinking to the public and rendered judgment only after other courts had weighed in."

In the 1960s, when the court was held in high esteem, decisions were made precisely that way. Chief Justice Earl Warren oversaw a deliberative body whose decisions are synonymous with individual rights, often taken for granted today.

The "liberal" Warren Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education and, within the five-year period between 1961 and 1966, gave America Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright and Mapp v. Ohio.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the high court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches and seizures cannot be used in court. This decision did more to improve police work and protect the public from overzealous police officers than any decision in modern history.

Gideon v. Wainwright ensured that all defendants charged with serious felonies have the right to counsel, even if they could not afford to hire their own. This decision created the era of public defense and ensured that anyone accused of a crime would not be forced to defend themselves against the resources of the state.

Miranda v. Arizona established "Miranda Rights." A decision so ingrained in the consciousness of viewers of American crime dramas that just about everyone can recite the warning, "You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney if you can't afford one, one will be appointed for you."

These decisions, though controversial, were not delivered in secret. They were briefed by learned lawyers, argued before the court and the decisions were thoughtful and deliberate. There were powerful dissents — and each of those decisions, some 60 years later, is still the law of the land.

That is how a court builds trust with the public.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Florida carries out fifth execution of 2026--the 24th in last 16 months

 The 8th Execution of 2026

 Chadwick Scott Willacy, a Florida man who set his neighbor on fire after she returned from work to find him burglarizing her home was executed on April 21, 2026, reported The Associated Press.

Willacy, 58, received a three-drug injection and was pronounced dead at 6:15 p.m. at Florida State Prison near Starke for the 1990 killing of Marlys Sather. It was Florida’s fifth execution this year.

The curtain to the death chamber went up promptly at the scheduled 6 p.m. execution time, and the lethal injection began 2 minutes later after Willacy made a brief statement.

He apologized to his family and friends and urged his ”brothers on the row” to stay strong. He maintained his innocence, saying he would never kill his friend.

“To the victim’s family, I hope this brings you peace. If it does, that’s good, ” Willacy said. “But this is not right.”

Shortly after the lethal injection got underway, a warden shook Willacy and shouted his name, but there was no response. His skin began to turn gray, and a medic eventually entered the chamber to examine Willacy, declaring him dead.

Court records indicate Sather, 56, had returned to her Palm Bay home on a lunch break from work on Sept. 5, 1990, and discovered Willacy burglarizing her home. He struck her in the head with a blunt object, fracturing her skull, and then bound her hands and ankles with wire and tape, according to investigators.

Willacy attempted to strangle Sather with a phone cord, and when that didn’t work, he doused her in gasoline and set her on fire, the records show. An autopsy determined that Sather had died from smoke inhalation, indicating she was still alive when she was set on fire.

Willacy also stole Sather’s car and other items from her home, and used the woman’s ATM card to steal cash, authorities said. When Sather failed to return from her break, her employer caller her family. Her son-in-law went to check on her and found her body.

Willacy was sentenced to death a year later upon a 9-3 jury recommendation after being convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, robbery and arson.

Then in 1994 the Florida Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing because the trial judge failed to allow defense attorneys a chance to rehabilitate a potential juror who indicated she could not recommend the death penalty. Willacy again drew the death penalty in 1995, following the 11-1 recommendation of a new jury.

Florida’s fifth execution of 2026 followed a record 19 executions in the state last year. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis oversaw more executions in a single year in 2025 than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The previous record was set in 2014 with eight executions.

On Tuesday, Willacy woke up at 5 a.m. and remained compliant as the execution hour approached, Department of Corrections spokesman Jordan Kirkland said earlier. The inmate received visits during the day from his mother, two sisters and a cousin, but did not meet with a spiritual adviser.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Willacy’s final appeal without comment. Last week the Florida Supreme Court also denied his appeals. He had made claims based on the state’s refusal to grant public records requests about executions and lethal injection.

None of Sather’s relatives spoke at a news briefing after the execution, but the family released a statement thanking DeSantis and others.

“We have waited 36.5 years for justice for our mom. Our mother, Marlys Mae Sather should be remembered as a beautiful and loving daughter, wife, mother of 3, grandmother of 5, great grandmother of 5, aunt, cousin and friend,” it said in part. It noted the victim had lost her husband to cancer in July 1990, “just weeks before she was murdered.”

“She was a new widow trying to take one day at a time,” it said. “We miss her so much every day.”

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025. Florida led the way with a long line of death warrants signed by DeSantis. Alabama, South Carolina and Texas tied for second with five executions each.

Another execution is planned in Florida on April 30. James Ernest Hitchcock, 70, is scheduled to received a lethal injection for his conviction in the fatal beating and choking of his 13-year-old niece.

All Florida executions are carried out by injecting a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

To read more CLICK HERE

Presidential pardons impact funds for victims

Since his return to office last year, President Donald Trump has pardoned dozens of white-collar criminals. He’s also forgiven their fines, penalties, and restitution, to the tune of billions. Some of that revenue was supposed to go to a fund to help victims of violent crime — and the organizations that serve them are feeling the pinch, reported The Trace.

The Crime Victims Fund, established in 1984 by the Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, is sustained by criminal fines and penalties from convictions in federal cases, typically white-collar prosecutions.

All of that money is required by law to be deposited into the fund. The money is distributed to state and local programs including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and child abuse treatment programs. Gun violence survivors and the families of victims who died rely routinely on VOCA funding to reimburse medical expenses, funeral costs, and lost wages.

To read more CLICK HERE

ICE scrapes bottom of the barrel in employment targets

Their backgrounds stand out. And not in a good way.

Two bankruptcies and six law enforcement jobs in three years. An allegation of lying in a police report to justify a felony charge against an innocent woman — an incident that led to a $75,000 settlement and criticism of his integrity. A third job candidate once failed to graduate from a police academy, then lasted only three weeks in his only job as a police officer, reported The Associated Press.

Their common bond: All were hired recently by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during an unprecedented hiring spree — 12,000 new officers and special agents to double its force — after the agency received a $75 billion windfall from Congress to enact President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

The president put a premium on swift action, and for ICE that meant rapid-fire recruitment and hiring, which in turn led to new employees with questionable qualifications. Their backgrounds and training have come under scrutiny after numerous high-profile incidents in which ICE agents used excessive force.

“If vetting is not done well and it’s done too quickly, you have higher risk of increased liability to the agency because of bad actions, abuse of power and the lack of ability to properly carry out the mission because people don’t know what they are doing,” said Claire Trickler-McNulty, who served as an ICE official during the Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations.

To read more CLICK HERE