Sarah Palin claims minorities are 2nd class citizens

As previously posted:

"lawful contact" is a defined term in Arizona law.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...a-92136104.html

 

oops bad link

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...fted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

 

I don't think that says it's a defined term. That's just the person who drafted the text of the law referring to what he meant. I did some searching and didn't find any specific legal definition of lawful contact. Have you found anything other than this link?

I know when I first read the bill I thought lawful contact meant any contact that was legally made by the officer (e.g. as a witness to some other crime), which of course is much broader than "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law" as indicated in that link.

Anyway, the Klobach person who is quoted there seems to think the law is intended for a much narrower implementation than what many here fear. His "reasonable suspicion" example is pretty detailed, too. The opposition's fear of what might happen with this law might be similar to the death panel and other fears promoted against the health care legislation. In other words, you can take any law and come up with convoluted and scary scenarios if you twist the wording far enough away from it's original intent.

 

This article explains what contact is lawful by a police officer better then I could.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

But this isn't directly from the Arizona Constitution which I am sure you would prefer, but I failed to find anything more official then numerous articles that agree that this is how the "lawful contact" clause is interpreted.

 

You never answered my question. Are you 17?

 

"interpreted" means jack ****. until it's tested in court

 

Even then, the way its worded it would be hard to have a real case against the interpretation.

 

I just think it's hilarious that this kid is arguing for the law based on cops not abusing this vague term. I can't believe that he doesn't understand that there are lots of cops out there who don't care whether or not you actually broke a law if they personally feel you look suspicous and that they have no problems lying about the reason you were stopped/searched and it's your word against theirs, which pretty much screws you. Giving them the power to do this, besides being unconstitutional, is really scary.

I understand people in Arizona being concerned about drug traffickers in their wide open spaces but really? this is the answer? and that idiot rep from tomball jumping on board

 

What prevents a cop from shooting me while I walk my dog? the law. What prevents a cop from asking me for proof of citizenship while I walk my dog? the law. Its not complicated.

 

what is the law? can you quote us what the specific legal definition of "lawful conduct" in the Arizona constitution?

 

No I am not gonna sift through thousands of pages of legislation. I will just trust the people who are paid to do that and the people of wrote the law. Which I have previously posted.

 

Let's talk again when you are older and you understand how the world works

 

so no one was posted this very relevant piece of info on the interwebz?

btw, do you blindly trust the govt and congress?

 

IMO, this is all just to force the Gov. to address this issue seriously.


Mission accomplished, since it looks like they have everyone attention now.


I am against the Arizona law because, it targets a certain ethnic group which is unconstitutional; however, I am totally for a 100ft deep, 100ft high and 50ft wide solid steel, electrified fence along the whole Mexican and Canadian borders. Also, a minimum of 10 years in jail for any business owner that knowingly hires an undocumented worker.

Immigration is absolutely necessary to the USA to stay on top of the world, however, it needs to be a control valve and not a broken mainline which will end up flooding our country.

Also, we need have a balance of immigrants between all ethnic groups from around the world.

 

I agree. Let's do what it takes to get rid of the people who are actually willing to work and keep the people who don't feel like working and who live off of our tax dollars!*

*sarcasm

I don't know the answer, but I know it isn't allowing cops to walk up to anyone "suspicous" and ask for papers.

 

Uh, no it is not.

Hey, genius, the bill is all of SEVENTEEN pages long in 8x11 PDF format.

The term "lawful contact" appears once, and is not defined.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/sb1070s.pdf

symbolic of your fail:

Spoiler

 

Praise Allah we don't live in your world!

 

He said the term was defined in Arizona law, not that specific Arizona law.

You'd think with an attitude like yours you'd be able to read simple sentences better.

 

He also said the bill was thousands of pages long when it was seventeen. You'll have to excuse me if I don't find him a very credible authority on this subject - I'm not sure why you do.

But anyway, cool uolj, would you like me to do a full text search of Arizona case law for a definiton of "lawful contacts"?

Since, of course, criminal protections are largely a constsitutional matter, I don't know how relevant it would be if Arizona decided to develop its own case law on the matter. But I am guessing it does not exist.

Would you like to do a signature bet on the outcome? I have access to all Arizona case law dating back a few centuries - if there's an arizona doctrine on its meaning, I will be able to find it within seconds.

You'd think you'd find a better horse to hitch your wagon to than your new lil buddy tallandover or whatever his name is.

So what do you say, sig bet for six months on there being a meaningful definition under Arizona law?

I promise I haven't run a search yet.

 

In an NPR interview, the chief of police in Tuscan said the following about lawful contact. Basically any standard communication with the police (not just for potential crimes) can count. In other words illegal immigrants have zero incentive to communicate with police. Hell why would you even say you witnessed a crime or report that you were the victim of a crime if that's justification for a search.

Link - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126286849

He also mentions how this is functionally an unfunded mandate on police departments since they have to waste resources on doing checks for immigration status.

Oh and I should mention, no one ****ing knows exactly what "lawful contact" means. So unlike the cop above, this Arizona law professor thinks it extends as far as asking a cop for directions or even if a cop walks up to you to say hi and have a chat, that's grounds for a search.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column?page=1