Hey, how you doing? >> What are y'all doing? >> I'm just asking a question. >> Huh? What are y'all doing? >> Get in the car. >> Is this your car? >> We can do a drive all day. One of my customers. >> One of your customers? >> No, tell them yeah. I was over here earlier. >> Whose car is that? >> This is mine. >> The black one? >> Yeah. >> All right. Take a break for me real fast and y'all have driver's license or IDs on you? >> I ain't going to submit no ID. Listen, you can call this lady right now. Listen, I ain't got time for this. I can hold on. I don't mean to be mean or rude or nothing. >> Okay, no. You You do need to give me your ID or driver's license. >> Listen, I don't want you to run run me in and it uh for for nothing cuz >> Are you refusing me to give Are you refusing to give me your ID or driver's license? >> this lady who owns owns this car. >> Step over that way. Come on, man. >> Mechanic Roland Edger traveled to the Progressive Union Missionary Baptist this church in Huntsville, Alabama to repair the car of a long-term client whose vehicle had broken down in the parking lot while she was working as a teacher at the church. When he first inspected the vehicle at around 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, Mr. Edger concluded that he would need to come back later with additional tools to fix the car. That evening, he returned to the church with his stepson Justin Newby to work on the vehicle. A security guard observed the two men working on the vehicle and called 911 reporting that the men were {quote} messing with an employee's car that was left on the lot. About 30 minutes later, Officer Krista McCabe of the Huntsville Police Department arrived. >> See, y'all See, here's y'all playing. >> You're playing right now. We don't We don't got time for this. We really don't got time for this. >> Officer McCabe demands that Mr. Edger provide his driver's license. And when he refuses, Officer Cameron Perelact handcuffs him. In general, as the Supreme Court explained, even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual of criminal activity, they can ask questions of that individual and even request the individuals identification, quote, "As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. However, as the Supreme Court note, the person approached need not answer any question put to him. Indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable objective grounds for doing so and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. Although the Constitution itself does not create an obligation for individuals to identify themselves, when officers have have the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain a citizen, quote, "A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures." Alabama's so-called stop and identify law, which is found in Section 15-5-30 of the Alabama code, provides that a law enforcement officer, now quoting, "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." Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Edger was engaged in criminal conduct, Alabama's stop and identify law would not authorize Officer McCabe to require him to display his driver's license as the statute clearly identifies the only three things that the officers may demand of a suspect. Their name, their address, and an explanation of their actions. >> I mean, y'all don't understand. >> You don't understand the law. >> I do. I do. Three officers. Three off- officers off. >> Oh. >> I'm 36 years old. >> Turn around, by the way. >> No, first of all, that's my left arm. My my left arm is hurting me. I've been twisting my left one, I just asked you, sir. >> All right, I'm going to do your cuffs and you're twisting your wrist around. >> I'm giving you my ID, sir. I got it. >> Hey man. Will you go stand in front of my car for me? >> I'll do I'll Hold on. I'm going to give you my ID. Man. >> No. We'll get your ID. >> Keep the wrist like that. >> All right. All right. >> They're good. They're good now. >> No. Look. >> They're good right now. They're not too tight. >> Okay. You're under arrest for obstruction. >> I didn't do nothing. >> All right. So, if you resist any further, you will also get charged with resisting arrest. Do you understand? >> Listen. I'll give you my ID. I'll tell you what's going on. This is ridiculous. I'm trying to get a customer's car here. I'm in a rush. They My shop's unlocked over on Governor's Drive right now. >> Officer McKelvin informs Mr. Edger that he is under arrest for obstruction. Alabama's obstruction statute, found in section 13A-10-2 of the Alabama code, provides that an individual, now quoting, commits the crime of obstructing governmental operations if, by means of intimidation, physical force, or interference, or by any other independently unlawful act, he intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function. The US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that an individual's failure to identify themselves when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe that they may be committing a crime can constitute a so-called independently unlawful act that violates the obstruction statute. However, as we discussed earlier in this episode, Alabama's stop and identify statute does not require citizens to provide physical identification which is the only thing that the officers requested from Mr. Edger before arresting him. And while officers have the authority to demand driver's licenses when they pull over individuals for potential traffic violations, there is no requirement under Alabama law that would require Mr. Edger to provide his driver's license in this situation, even if a court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that a court would determine that the officers had probable cause or even arguable probable cause to arrest Mr. Edger for obstruction or any other offense. >> Do you want my ID? >> Where is your ID? >> It's in the car, I'm sure. I thought it was in my pocket. You all down in my pocket for no reason. I said my ID is either is in my car. Go over and walk in and get my car. Bring me my car. >> still going to search your pocket because I don't know what's in there, all right? And you're not going to get placed in my car without knowing what's in your pocket. >> You shut up. Is that how you talk to someone? Is that officer supposed to talk to someone like that? >> Yeah, we're here doing a custodial search on you. >> I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything. What you all need to do is call Mr. Joel Patel right there in this office right here. Hand me the key. >> I already explained to you, all right? >> I mean, I am such a rush. >> How long has it been, man? I've been trying to get over and get this car all day. >> And then here There it is, okay. >> That's it. That's it right there. >> Is that all his pockets? >> He's got change. I got change and stuff like that. >> This ain't necessary. >> The officers searched Mr. Edger's pockets before placing him in the back seat of the police cruiser. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers are authorized to conduct a warrantless, so-called full search of the person incident to a custodial arrest without violating the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that, quote, "A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. That intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. However, it is important to note that this exception to the warrant requirement for searches only applies to constitutionally lawful arrests. And in situations where the underlying arrests are not based on probable cause, any evidence obtained during the search of the arrestee can typically be suppressed." >> Therefore, in this case, it is highly likely that a court would conclude that because the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Edger, their search of his person also violated the Fourth Amendment. >> This is unnecessary. >> This is necessary. That's called obstruction. >> I think listen, I didn't do anything. I listen please please listen please listen please. >> I've already told him that he's under arrest. >> This is ridiculous man. You know what I'm saying? [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] I didn't I didn't do a crime but she's trying to arrest somebody for not doing a crime. She's trying to arrest me for obstruction for what? I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything I didn't do anything. Huh? This is what I'm saying. She's down. I mean listen please please listen. >> Sit down. >> That's what I'm saying man. I got my shop unlocked over there. I'm trying to comply. Man please listen to me in the car. This is please listen. >> No you don't want to listen to us so >> I'm trying to explain to you. I'm sir I'm trying to explain. >> Stay. >> Okay. Once again just have a seat right there for me okay? Do you have No. >> I need your ID. >> Thank you. Okay. So all right. He he is going to jail. All right? Yes. Okay well that that sucks. I mean good people go to jail too. Good people bad people if they break the law they break the law they go to jail. All right? I asked him multiple times for his ID or driver's license and I know what Yep. Okay. Then he refused. I asked him again if he was sure that he was refusing to give it to me. He confirmed that he was refusing to give it to me and at that point he is obstructing an investigation and he is going to jail. All right? I'm out here because I got a call stating that that vehicle okay is an employee here and you guys were inside the car and you're not supposed to be inside the car. Okay? And that's fine. All right? But I'm still here making sure that you're not doing anything illegal. But it took me now how long have I been out here? Like 5 6 7-ish minutes, okay? I'm just now getting to tell you why I'm here because of his actions. All right, I'm just now I'm just now getting to explain what I'm investigating because he deterred me from doing that. >> That's his car. He owns the body shop here. It's uh by Shell Station Auto Collision. He owns it. I just I've been with him a little bit. >> Jaco? Okay, so whose car is it that is an employee >> Dola. She works here. >> Which car is it that's hers? >> The red one. >> Okay, is she here? >> No, ma'am. They've already went home for the day. >> Okay, well a what's her last name? >> I'm not sure. >> Is it Perez maybe? Can Does anybody know who that it is? >> Cuz I'm just a security guard and all I seen was them jacking up a car. >> Can't I mean you can't get away with stuff like that. acting the way that he did. All right, and refusing to give his identification. I I gave him 20 a lot of opportunities to give me his ID in which he confirmed that obstruction. >> They said you're going to jail for obstruction jail. >> There's no crime committed. >> There there is. You refused multiple times to identify yourself to me. >> You can argue that you can argue that point in court. Now, what do you have to say what what do you need to release to your son? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Really? I mean Okay, do you have nothing else to say? Okay. >> Sir, sir, I don't know what to say. >> What do you need from him? I just want to know why I'm being obviously he doesn't want to talk about that. He wants to talk about him being charged. So, I have the keys to that car on the top of the car. You're free to go, okay? >> to let me ask him for me? >> What's up? >> to let me ask him before I need to call? >> Well, I he'll be able to call someone once he gets into jail. As soon as he gets done as soon as he gets booked done, we I mean you saw that all he wanted to talk to was either me or that officer. He didn't want to talk to you after we told him multiple times to talk to you. >> Please don't do me this way. I don't I don't need I need I don't need my I don't need my faith. >> Here for you appears to be the left. >> I'm a I go to church. I'm a good person. >> Okay. You break the law. All right. >> Please, what about my money and stuff? >> It's right here in my seat. >> Please don't do me this way. Man, this is going to blow my whole paycheck trying to make some bail. Please don't. >> Hey, I know we're here now and it's a and you're not happy with me, but I'm very sorry, okay? >> Like I said, all I would have done when I got there is get y'all's ID to see who you are, all right? I would have called I'm not going to butcher his last name, all right? I'm not even going to try. I would have called that male whoever car that was, okay? That's how it would have been. I would have called him. I would have verified that you're supposed to be there with the car and I would have said Y'all have a great night, all right? But >> no way that you would reconsider that for me? >> No, sir. If I if we do that, I mean then everyone >> Would you would you take a moment just let me talk to you for a second here, though? >> I mean, we we're already at the jail, all right? Let's come over here. >> After his arrest, Mr. Edger was charged with obstructing, but the city of Huntsville later dismissed the charge. Mr. Edger filed a false arrest lawsuit against Officer McCabe, Officer Perales, and the city of Huntsville in federal court. Despite determining that the officers did not have actual probable cause to arrest Mr. Edger, the district court granted the officers qualified immunity and dismissed Mr. Edger's complaint, reasoning that the officers had arguable probable cause to make the arrest because a reasonable but mistaken officer could have believed that Mr. Edger's refusal to provide physical identification was a crime. Mr. Edger appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, determining that Officer McCabe and Officer Perales were not entitled to qualified immunity. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that, quote, "It has been clearly established for decades prior to Mr. Edger's arrest that the police are free to ask questions and the public is free to ignore them. And the state statute itself in this case is clear and requires no additional construction. Police are empowered to demand from an individual three things: name, address, and explanation of his actions. Under this set of facts and these precedents, no reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Edger for obstructing governmental operations. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to move forward with the case.