Log in
2012 May 23 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/04/27/what-is-lawful-contact/
0
3
  |   13 comments

Update Below

Following up on my earlier post, I wish to take a moment and discuss the Arizona legislation on illegal immigration that prompted Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict to send out an email yesterday morning.  While I think the law is well intentioned, I also think it is kind of vague on how it should be enforced.  It specifies that race alone can’t be used to enforce the law, but doesn’t really specify what other criteria are to be used.

Proponents of the bill point to the “lawful contact” clause, and suggest that it refers to any time a police officer has suspected somebody of a crime, such as when they pull a car over.  But suggest is pretty much all they do at this point.  That’s because nobody can actually cite what “lawful contact” means.  Does it really mean a police stop for a speeding car, or does it mean any other time when a police officer makes contact with a resident that isn’t considered an abuse of their position?  Can an officer walk up to someone on the town green and demand to see proof of legal residency?

I have looked at the Arizona Revised Statutes, but have yet to find a section that defines “lawful contact.”

Would it have been so difficult to expand the clause to say “lawful contact pursuant to provisions under Title 13 of the Arizona Revised Statutes” (the criminal code)?  I’m not a legal scholar, so I have no idea if that would give the law a more narrow scope, but I think it would give a lot more direction to how an officer may go about requesting identification from a person they reasonably suspect as illegal.

Right now, it seems to me that the law is too vague, making it fresh pickings for a court case.

Update: The Arizona legislature recently passed a law defining what lawful contact means.

  1. Posted by Brian P
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110687 ›
    Brian P I 100% agree with you. Your last few paragraphs are dead-on.
  2. Posted by Brian
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110689 ›
    Brian Its OK if the law is vague.. People forget that civil rights issues are already accounted for, on a case-by-case basis, by the court system.. and don't need to be accounted for in the text of the statute. If a policeman uses the law to target someone in a way that would be considered as a violation of rights, that'll be found out in court. With that in mind, avoid lawsuits, police departments will narrowly define for their officers under what situations someone could be investigated. The impression people are getting is that somehow either the law either allows police to violate rights -- it doesn't -- or that police will flagrantly invite lawsuits on themselves -- they won't.
    • Michael_Merritt I would prefer the violation not happen in the first place. Then again, if it does, I guess an officer isn't going to be stopped by some silly thing like the law or PD protocol.
    • Posted by greg
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110780 ›
      greg not to sound like one of those kind of guys, because I'm really not, but your last sentence was spoken like a person (probably white) who has never been pulled out of their car and made to sit on side of the curb with your legs crossed and your hands on top of your head with your fingers interlinked, only to be sent off with a "warning." And probably someone who's never been pulled over by police and asked this question, this is a direct quote "Um...do you live in the neighborhood you were just driving out of?" with the follow up question of "Are you sure?" The point is this, Police violate people's civil rights every day, and profile people racially all the time and there is no good faith reason to assume that they won't continue to do so. Further, there generally isn't a fear of law suits in these matters because of people, such as yourself, who seem to hold officers in a regard higher than that which is merited, and a system of justice that begins with the very people being accused violating their oaths.
    • Posted by Mike
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110792 ›
      Mike Brain: No, laws can be unconstitutional on their face with out any specific use by the state.
  3. Posted by Chris
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110690 ›
    Chris This is my question too? What the heck does "lawful contact" mean? It is way to vague and ambiguous. There is also the question of "reasonable suspicion". What does that mean. Seems like this law was vaguely written on purpose.
    • Michael_Merritt I actually don't have an issue with that part. That's defined pretty clearly, even outside this legislation. You know, if someone is clearly doing something wrong, it would be improper of an officer to not investigate it. My beef lies with that first sentence. So long as these questions about legality come in the course of some other clear violation of the law, I have no issue with checking.
  4. Posted by DaiCon
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110755 ›
    DaiCon As far as I have been able to discern, lawful contact is simply any contact that is not illegal i.e., is not an abuse of the LEO's authority. So, if someone approached a police officer to report that they had been the victim of a mugging, and their wallet had been stolen, that would be lawful contact. If the officer then felt that there was reasonable suspicion that the person was an illegal immigrant (say, speaking with broken English), the officer could demand proof of citizenship from the person whose wallet had just been stolen, and detain them if they were not able to produce it.
  5. Posted by Common Sense
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110799 ›
    Common Sense What is so horribly different about this case compared to any other. I have to carry identification wherever I go. I get asked for ID at the bar to verify my age, I get asked for ID at the pharmacy to pick up a prescription, if I am pulled over I get asked for a drivers license and may even get asked a bunch of questions regarding my activities for the evening. It is circumstantially based. If it is two in the morning and I am a young guy heading away from the city, there is a chance I could have been drinking and the cop is doing his due diligence to check me out. We can banter back and forth about the details but the bottom line is when you are out and about, you are supposed to carry ID--regardless of who you are. So if a cop walks up to me and asks me for ID, I am going to produce it, answer any questions he has and be on my way. If you are here LEGALLY (and yes, despite what Martha Coakley will tell you their is a difference) then carry your ID. Be happy that they are checking. You worked hard to get your ID and your status. I can't imagine you want somebody cutting you in line and getting the same benefits. 87% of all Arizona officers killed in the line of duty last year were killed bye someone who was here illegally. No wonder they are pissed.
    • Michael_Merritt
      the bottom line is when you are out and about, you are supposed to carry ID--regardless of who you are
      I agree with the law, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate by saying that you don't have to carry ID wherever you go. Yes, you need it to drive and drink. Though I've never been asked for my ID when getting prescriptions, maybe that's the law/store policy where you live. But, you don't have to do those things at any given time. Citizens should never be required to carry their ID unless there's a lawful purpose for it (such as driving or drinking). I had no form of ID until I was 19 or so. I had to get one because, according to the law, I needed one if I wanted to fly. To require your citizens to carry papers at all times would bring us closer to the kind of police state we saw with the Soviet Union. That said, those who are not natural born or are not naturalized are not citizens, and until they are, they should have to prove that they're here legally. So on that point we have no disagreement.
  6. Posted by immigration
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110802 ›
    immigration http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/arizona-lawmakers-clarify-lawful-contact
  7. Pingback | Link #110886 ›
    Arizona Responds to “Lawful Contact” Concerns [...] Lying About Vietnam ServiceLee Thomas on Politico: Dems Still Backing BlumenthalMichael_Merritt on What Is “Lawful Contact”? [...]
1