Демонстрация 25 го апреля с/г в поддержку Израиля против политики Обамы
Видио с выступающими на митинге..........
***********.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137223

someone obviously refuses to understand the law the way it's written -just like now, in the future a police officer CANNOT approach/stop/comein contact with anyone based on race or any other factor..unless thereis a violation of some sort - only then a police officer can engage ina lawful contact with citizens..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, the only one who refuses (or maybe just incapable) to understand, is you. as far as I can tell, there is no legal definition of "lawful contact". why do you think that specific term was chosen? the Arizona immigration law was designed to be intentionally ambiguous. absent a legal definition, "lawful contact" will be open to interpretation, and will mean whatever the police officer wants and needs it to mean.

Maria, I'm obviously talking about of citizens who were born in the 50states of United States of America
Well, than what is the bid worry that an illegal person , who violated some law ( traffic law, gas station robbery, mugging on the street, human trafficking) is being question by the police about his immigration status? That person would have been arrested anyway, even if the Arizona law would not exist, but now the police has a right to determine this criminal's legal status.
That's what the law is about. It specifically forbids racial profiling.
Demagogues on the left, starting with our community agitator-in-chief, are exploiting the fear that the police will abuse their powers.
It police abuses power-each policemen will be tried in court.
Period.
Leftists are fear mongering and playing the race card! It's despicable! (N) (N) (N)

Well, than what is the bid worry that an illegal person , who violated some law( traffic law, gas station robbery, mugging on the street, humantrafficking) is being question by the police about his immigrationstatus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
is that what the law actually says? I'm not asking what you think or hope it means, I'm asking for a legal definition of "lawful contact".

Well, than what is the bid worry that an illegal person , who violated some law...
Once again, my only worry is that some naturalized citizen (such as myself, for example) will be required to carry his/her federal identification papers (such as passport) because he/she has an accent. And therefore, when asking a cop in Arizona about how to get to a museum, will be asked to provide proof of his/her citizenship -- as, due to clear foreign accent, the above-said policeman will get reasonably suspicious about his/her immigration status.
While his/her friend, who is born here and has no accept will not be asked to do so. Therefore, a two-cast system of citizens is created.
Do I need to provide a simpler explanation or that would be sufficient?

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.
Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

********corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

That person would have been arrested anyway, even if the Arizona lawwould not exist, but now the police has a right to determine thiscriminal's legal status.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
a right they didn' previously have? considering that there's a New Jersey directive that actually requires (not permits) the local police to inquire about immigration status after they've arrested an individual for an indictable offense or for driving while intoxicated, I find it difficult to believe that a similar law doesn't exist in Arizona.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
what is the legal definition of lawful contact???