DU Legal Minds: A Question:

[Hosnon]

What is the definition of "lawful contact" in this passage?

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

The statute itself doesn't seem to have a definition. Does any SCOTUS case law define it?

This is where this debate is going. Supporters of the law are claiming that "lawful contact" is restricted to contact resulting from some other violation.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Broken tail light, jay walking, trespassing, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, running a stop sign,

not wearing your seat belt, any thing that breaks the law from the most minor or trivial to the deadly serious.

Thanks for the thread, Hosnon.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. It's kinda like when you watch that show, COPS

They pull people over for coasting through a stop sign or a dim headlamp.

Next thing you know the entire car is pulled apart with personal belongings strewn along the roadside and a dog sniffing around until they find something to make a felony charge for what was originally something hardly worth bothering about.

AND it's almost always the poor and minorities in these clips.

I don't much care for the whole business and that is BEFORE this racist law passed in AZ.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I do appreciate the dangerous and necessary duty performed by conscientious police officers, but I

hate those programs.

I see those shows; as corporate media propaganda aimed at pulling the nation in to an even more draconian police state than it already is with the aim of diminishing the people's self image, while subliminally promoting corporate supremacy.

By diminishing the people's self image, they diminish the idea of government; "We the People."

I see these programs as hand in glove propaganda; geared to reinforce fear messages through their "news," programming and I believe that's why FOX loves this stuff.

How often are weekly programs telecast depicting police malfeasance, corruption and brutality or families destroyed by illogical, dysfunctional, and draconian laws exploding our prison system and thus enriching greedy for profit corporate antagonists of the American People's freedom and liberty?

[SteppingRazor]

2. Those supporters of the law are correct. Lawful contact means contact within the context ...

of the officer's doing his duty, not merely passing you on the street corner.

That said, the law still opens the door to some serious problems. After all, driving even a mile or two over the speed limit is technically against the law. Jaywalking is against the law. In some cases, loitering is against the law. Trespassing is defined within the new law as being anywhere on public or private land without identification if you're an alien.

So, while it is true that "lawful contact" does mean the officer has to have stopped the person in question within the parameters of his job, that doesn't mean that the law offers no opportunities for systemic abuse.

[EFerrari]

8. But that is what this law does. It makes it an officer's duty

to stop and question people based on their race.

[joeybee12]

12. But, but, but...you were talking on your cell phone on that street corner

and weren't watching where you were going...pretty much anything can be made into "lawful contact."

[DefenseLawyer]

3. If it is a stop based upon "reasonable suspicion"

That is what is referred to as a "Terry Stop", named for a Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio, which essentially says that if a police office has reasonable suspicion that "crime is afoot" he can briefly detain an individual to ask questions and, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous, he may conduct a "pat down search" for weapons. This is opposed to a "casual encounter" which says that a police office can approach anyone just for the heck of it to ask a question, but without reasonable suspicion the person can't be detained, so if it is a casual encounter the person is free to tell the cop to kiss off and go on his way. Both of those would be "lawful contact". The issue isn't really about stopping someone with reasonable suspicion that there may be a crime (that's already the law everywhere), it is making undocumented immigration status itself a crime, such that a person can be stopped on suspicion that they may not be documented. Of course you can ask many many African Americans that this kind of thing already de facto exists in many places in this country (that is pulling someone over because of the color of his or her skin), but the cop in those places simply takes the added step of making up some "other violation" to justify the stop.

[Hosnon]

6. So asking a cop for directions isn't a "lawful contact"? nt.

[DefenseLawyer]

13. Any contact is lawful unless the officer has overstepped his bounds

The issue isn't really contact, it's the officer having the right to detain you, even briefly, and to conduct an investigation or pat you down for weapons.

[Hosnon]

14. That's my take on it. "Lawful contact" seems to be defined by negation.

"Any contact that is not unlawful."

So if a cop in Arizona helps a little old Hispanic lady across the street, he has an obligation to investigate her status if has reasonable suspicion that she is here illegally.

[AnArmyVeteran]

4. 'Lawful Contact' can be justified in any setting...

I'm not a lawyer, but any cop can pull over anyone at any time for 'suspicion' of something. The way Arizona state officials have described it, 'lawful contact' is when a cop approaches you if your license is expired, you are speeding, or if one of your turn signals isn't working. But that opens the door empowering a cop to look for reasons to trump up a 'lawful contact' saying he saw the driver making a lane change or swerving ever so slightly.

True Story: I was driving on a divided highway with two lanes going west. I was in the left lane and when I saw a cop approaching me from behind with his lights on I slowed down to almost a stop and moved to the right lane so he could pass by and not be an obstacle in his way. But then he slowed down directly behind me so I slowly pulled off onto the side of the road and stopped. When I asked him why he stopped me he said I was swerving. I told him I just changed lanes to let him have an easy access so he could pass me. But he wrote me a ticket anyway and I had to pay a $75 fine.

I wasn't swerving, just moving out of the officer's way, but his intent was to give me a ticket and he did. And he dreamed up a 'lawful contact' in order to stop me.

Arizona cops could do this all day long. They have a lot of tricks they could use as 'lawful contact' to pull you over and demand your identity.

[csziggy]

11. If the law were the same as in Florida he could have pulled you for being in the left lane

Since according to Florida law you are supposed to drive in the right lane unless passing someone. So either way, he would have had a 'lawful contact' and the ability to give you grief.

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Yes, under today's law, but that law didn't exist in the 70s

I was on a road with absolutely no traffic in either direction. It was a clear night. I like to drive in the middle of the road (left lane) at night because it is safer in case an animal darted out into my path. If you drive in the right most lane you will have less time to react. The 'stay in the right lane' law was passed many years later to maintain a more even flow and to allow faster cars to pass slower cars.

Texas has the same law as Florida, today. But even so, at night I will drive in the lane farthest away from the side of the road. It's safer. I had a friend who had a deer run in front of him and it totaled his car and almost killed him. Frankly, I don't care what the 'law' says when I am driving at night. I will drive to protect my life, but also respect other drivers' rights to pass me in the left lane.

[csziggy]

16. Yes, we do the same on an empty highway

One of the four lane roads we take often, coming home from trips, has a lot of wear on the right lane from the logging trucks that take it every day. That lane looks like an unleveled dirt road with ruts for the wheels and a hump in the middle. It can actually be dangerous when it is raining since the ruts collect water and create a hydroplane hazard. In addition the highway runs through thousands of acres of planted pines, swampland and undeveloped land with lots of deer, many of which graze along the edges and in the median in the early evening.

But we have had a trooper pull us over and give a warning about driving in the left lane, even when there was no other traffic at all. Probably because we have a Suburban and that area gets a lot of drug traffickers moving drugs from the little sea ports inland to the cities. Since we were clean with almost nothing in the truck, he let us go with just the warning.

[GodlessBiker]

7. Police have a lawful right to walk up to a person and ask a question...

the person doesn't have to answer the question, but this "common law right of inquiry" is well founded.

Accordingly, "lawful contact" can just be going up and asking. If the individual refuses to answer, is that reasonable suspicion that the person is not here lawfully?

[EFerrari]

9. Yesterday, Laura Flanders said she's staying out of Arizona because

as the law is written, she can be detained for having an accent. :)