51品茶

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to 鈥淪top and Question鈥� people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The 51品茶鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit鈥檚 ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law鈥攇iven its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code鈥攔ules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. 鈥� The national 51品茶, the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and The Woods Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Alabama Supreme Court today, urging the court to hold that an Alabama stop-and-question law does not authorize police to demand physical identification when questioning someone on the street. 鈥淭he plain text of Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law makes clear that it does not permit police officers to compel someone to produce a physical ID, and for good reason,鈥� said Matthew Segal, co-director of the 51品茶 State Supreme Court Initiative. 鈥淭he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has previously held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize demands for documents, and this case is an important opportunity for the Alabama Supreme Court to confirm that the Eleventh Circuit got it right.鈥� The case involves Pastor Michael Jennings, a Black man who was confronted by officers in his neighbors鈥� yard while watering their flowers. Jennings identified himself as 鈥淧astor Jennings,鈥� truthfully said that he lived across the street, and explained that he was watering his neighbors鈥� flowers while they were away. Nevertheless, police demanded he present physical identification, and arrested Jennings after he refused. 鈥淎labama's stop-and-question law does not empower police officers to force people to prove they are who they say they are,鈥� said Matthew Cavedon, incoming director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. 鈥淣othing in Alabama law makes people carry ID cards, and indeed, fewer than half of Alabamians even have a driver's license. The Alabama Supreme Court should confirm that people in the Yellowhammer State do not risk arrest simply by not carrying around fully stocked wallets.鈥� Jennings鈥� charges of obstructing governmental operations were later dismissed, and Jennings sued the arresting officers and the city in federal district court. As part of that litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Pastor Jennings under Alabama Code section 15-5-30, a law entitled 鈥淎uthority of Peace Officer to Stop and Question.鈥� But the federal district court has certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court asking whether, under section 15-5-30, a law enforcement officer may require physical identification when the person 鈥済ives an incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response.鈥� In June, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 鈥淎 free people cannot exist at the mercy of arbitrary demands from the state. The right to go about one鈥檚 life without unjustified intrusion by police or other government actors is a cornerstone of liberty. To interpret 搂 15-5-30 as authorizing arrests for refusing to produce physical identification would invert that principle鈥攊nviting abuse, eroding public trust, and granting government a power our Constitution was designed to withhold,鈥� said Lauren Faraino, executive director of The Woods Foundation. The brief filed today argues that section 15-5-30 does not authorize demands for physical identification. The law permits police to request only three facts: name, address, and an explanation of one鈥檚 actions. It also only references oral questioning, nowhere referring to documents. 鈥淎lthough the certified question in this case posits that the police can perhaps demand physical ID after someone gives 鈥榓n incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response,鈥� the statute neither contains those words nor any instructions for interpreting them. Nor does it say what kind of ID will satisfy that demand. Nor does it say what should happen if the pedestrian claims that they do not own an ID, or that they left it at home,鈥� the brief reads.

McALLEN, Texas 鈥� Attorneys for Lizelle Gonzalez 鈥� a Texas woman who was unlawfully arrested and charged with murder for having a medication abortion 鈥� asked a federal court today to deny Starr County officials鈥� attempts to evade accountability for her wrongful arrest, prosecution, and the trauma that followed. The brief supporting Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 opposition to the officials鈥� motions for summary judgement contains damning evidence of misconduct, hypocrisy, and illegality by Starr County officials. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancies. Throughout this process, Starr County officials repeatedly and knowingly violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights and attempted to hide their actions. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 highly personal decision regarding her pregnancy was not, and never has been, a criminal matter 鈥� yet the Starr County District Attorney, his assistant district attorneys, the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office ignored the clear language of the Texas homicide statute and long standing law to wrongly charge her with murder,鈥� said Cecilia Garza, partner at Garza Martinez and local counsel for Lizelle Gonzalez. 鈥淭hese officials abused their power and intentionally violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 fundamental rights. Their wonton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices鈥� purposes: to seek justice. I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas.鈥� The civil lawsuit, brought by the 51品茶 (51品茶), the 51品茶 of Texas, and local firm Garza Martinez seeks to ensure that those entrusted with enforcing our criminal laws face consequences when they abuse their power and violate the constitutional rights of their community members. While the district attorney ultimately dismissed the charge against Ms. Gonzalez, her arrest on a homicide charge was highly publicized and deeply traumatizing. She spent three days in jail, away from her children, before the $500,000 bond was posted for her release. As a result of the false accusation and wrongful arrest, Lizelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed. Following the dismissal, the Texas bar investigated the district attorney for knowingly pursuing an unlawful indictment and made multiple findings of misconduct related to charging Ms. Gonzalez with homicide. Despite these findings, the district attorney received a minimal punishment: a small fine and a one-year fully probated suspension. Without real accountability, Starr County鈥檚 District Attorney 鈥� and any other law enforcement actor 鈥� will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law. In July 2024, the court denied Starr County officials鈥� attempts to have this case dismissed. The prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights. Immunity doctrines create a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people鈥檚 rights, knowing they will face few, if any, consequences. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez鈥檚 case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. As detailed in Gonzalez鈥檚 brief, the discovery obtained over the last year reveals a coordinated effort between the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office and District Attorney鈥檚 Office to violate Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 rights and exposes misconduct by government officials who think the law they are entrusted to enforce does not apply to them. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed by the cruel and unconstitutional actions of Starr County鈥檚 elected officials,鈥� said Lauren Johnson, director of the 51品茶 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. 鈥淟izelle deserves justice for the trauma they have caused her and her family 鈥� and each of us deserve to be free of targeting by officials who ignore the law to unlawfully charge and arrest based on personal beliefs. We will continue fighting against the criminalization of people for the private decisions they make related to their pregnancy.鈥� 鈥淪tarr County prosecutors and law enforcement ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy,鈥� said Sarah Corning, an attorney at the 51品茶 of Texas. 鈥淭hey shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold. Texas law is clear: a pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it.鈥�

WASHINGTON 鈥� President Trump signed an executive order today directing states to criminalize unhoused people and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder. The order, titled 鈥淓nding Crime and Disorder on American Streets,鈥� directs the Justice Department to expand indefinite forced treatment for people with mental health disabilities or substance use disorder, and those living on the street who 鈥渃annot care for themselves.鈥� The order also purports to eliminate federal funding for evidence-based programs, like harm reduction and housing first, that save lives, and directs federal funds toward cities and states that criminalize substance use disorder, punish people for sleeping outdoors, or enforce other laws targeting unhoused people. The order also calls for sweeping federal data collection on unhoused people and those with mental health disabilities, raising serious concerns about surveillance, privacy, and how such data could be used to justify further criminalization. Instead of funding services or support, the administration is prioritizing profiling and control. Scout Katovich, senior staff attorney with the 51品茶鈥檚 Trone Center for Justice and Equality, issued the following statement in response to the executive order: 鈥淔rom the so-called 鈥楤ig Beautiful Bill鈥� that will strip health care from millions to this dangerous executive order, every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people. 鈥淧ushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won鈥檛 solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true 鈥� institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn鈥檛 work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers. But instead of investing in these proven solutions, President Trump is blaming individuals for systemic failures and doubling down on policies that punish people with nowhere else to go 鈥� all after signing a law that decimates Medicaid, the number one payer for addiction and mental health services. 鈥淗omelessness is a policy failure. Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won鈥檛 solve this crisis.鈥�