This might help to clear up the "lawful contact" issue a little- it doesn't mean "law-ish contact"

[coti]

The English language is a funny thing.

This "lawful contact" thing that has come up is actually a very simple concept, but it looks as if some people are interpreting the words in, well, a kind of funny way.

The "lawful" part of "lawful contact" does not mean contact that is "law-ish" or "full of law," or "having to do with the law," or contact "so that the officer and the person being contacted can talk about law-related issues." If someone was interpreting the phrase in that way- the way the Republicans and Teabaggers seem to be doing- one might conclude that such "law-full contact" would require a person to have done something wrong that required the police to talk to them.

I have to admit, that someone might read the phrase in such a way does make me laugh.

"Lawful contact" is very simply any contact a police officer has with a civilian in compliance with the restrictions placed on their contact with others by the law, while on duty, or in their role as a police officer, which are minimal when they are not detaining or arresting someone. Police officers, while on duty, have lawful contact with others all day long, every time they talk with someone, and maybe even more often than that, if someone considers observing people on the street contact by an officer.

[eShirl]

1. k&r

[uppityperson]

2. k&r

[Redbear]

3. Great point, Here are a few examples:

If a civilian asks an officer for directions to the Suns-Blazers game

If an officer contacts a civilian to see if they mave have seen anything when a crime occurs in the civilian's neighorhood

When a civilian contacts an officer to report a crime or report seeing a wanted suspect

If an officer stops to help a stranded motorist (who hasn't broken any laws)

As I read the law, all of these situations require the officer to follow the new law.

[jberryhill]

6. It is BROADER still

If an officer walks past you on the sidewalk and says "Have a nice day."

That's a lawful contact.

Now, if you aren't friendly back, then he just might start suspecting something..

[Redbear]

4. Delete double post

[jberryhill]

5. What's remarkable is...

People think it means some sort of fourth or fifth amendment contact incident to reasonable suspicion of an offense - like a momentary detention situation.

The thing is... This law itself provides the foundation for a momentary detention, since it IS a defined offense. The promoters make it sound like is has to be incident to detention on reasonable suspicion of some OTHER offense. That was ALREADY the situation, and didn't need this law. In other words, if you were pulled over for speeding, or briefly questioned in the vicinity of a robbery, then yes, it might get to the level of asking for ID if there was continued reason for the underlying suspicion.

This law kicks the legs out from under the notion that some predicate offense is required to query ID.

[coti]

7. "This law kicks the legs out from under the notion that some predicate offense is required to query

ID."

Nailed it.