Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U of A law prof: "Lawful contact" could "mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 04:48 PM
Original message
U of A law prof: "Lawful contact" could "mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people
"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman wrote on April 29 that University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller "says 'lawful contact' could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him -- something police are allowed to do -- he may have established 'lawful contact.' ""

"AZ police chief: Talking "to a witness of a crime" and "a victim of a crime" are "legal contacts of law enforcement." In an interview on NPR's All Things Considered, Tuscon police chief Roberto Villasenor stated: "I think where a lot of people are getting confused is those instances where we stop someone for a criminal violation, we have some reason for that stop and that contact, but I don't believe that's what we're talking about in regard to this law.""


http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290024
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. So the best thing to do is not engage in conversation with police officers?
Edited on Thu Apr-29-10 04:54 PM by KansDem
If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him -- something police are allowed to do -- he may have established 'lawful contact.'

So I just ignore him? Pretend he's not there? Oh, yeah, that'll make him all warm and fuzzy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Also, don't report crimes and don't stick around to be a witness
Edited on Thu Apr-29-10 04:56 PM by SemiCharmedQuark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yeah, here's a "double whammy"
California Town to Charge for 911 Calls

Back in June 2009, the city approved a plan to start charging residents for 911 calls and emergency services rendered. According to the Tracy Press:

Residents will pay $300 for every fire department response to a medical emergency. Non-residents can expect to pay $400. There is no set cost for a fire department visit to a car accident.

The city is working out an option so that households can pay an annual membership fee of $48, which would cover the cost of any emergency aid given during the course of a year, said David Bramell, who is acting as fire chief while Chief Chris Bosch is on administrative leave.

The Oakland company, ADPI-Intermedix, will receive about 15 percent of all of the city fees.


So if an Arizona town adopts this strategy, not only will you be charged for calling 911, you'll be asked to produce your papers, too.

I can see "Good Samaritanism" going by the wayside...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech9413 Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yea that "lawful contact" phrase is just too open ended
They could walk up to you and ask you for a light and that would be "lawful contact" The other phrase that bothers me is reasonable suspicion. I've dealt with LEO's for years and I know more than a few who could dream up a "reasonable suspicion" cause for going after someone.

I worked in some pretty tough neighborhoods but am lily white and squeaky clean. Just by being there I was suspicious. My presence indicated to them an interest in doing something illegal. That was "reasonable suspicion" enough to check my ID, pat me down and ask why I was there. Even when they found out I was doing work at a school or hospital in the area they just kept trying to push my buttons to get me to do something wrong.

Don't think for a minute that this doesn't go on all around the country.

I hope the people of AZ realize they are opening themselves up to an unbelievable legal responsibility if they don't shut down this legislation. It might serve them well to study the history of Prince Georges CO. Virginia when they passed an anti-immigration law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kindly tell that to this one:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC