why?? you can't read such a lengthy explanation or afraid won't be able to admit there is nothing wrong with the law?? (H)
I know it's both..(ch)
lawful contact - a contact that's legal, constitutional, permitted under the current law.. which part of "lawful" you do not understand?? *-)

Indeed, it is this distinction that the Minnesota
Court of Appeals relied on to adopt a per se rule prohibiting all investigative vehicle stops for past misdemeanor offenses. In so holding, the court reasoned that the aggregate governmental interests that such stops would promote did not outweigh the severe interference with personal liberty that such stops implicate. This court was correct: the governmental interests in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice that justified the Court’s extension of Terry in the Hensley decision do not support the further extension of Terry to stops for completed misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are, by definition, less serious offenses than felonies, and the public interest in bringing such offenders to justice is not high enough to outweigh the strong privacy interests implicated by Terry stops.

lawful contact - a contact that's legal, constitutional, permittedunder the current law.. which part of "lawful" you do not understand??
----------------------------------------------------------
are you an idiot or just pretending? take a look at a legal dictionary. I understand lawful and contact, but lawful contact is a new legal term that is yet to be defined by the courts.

here - I found a less complex site for you..
********lawforcops.com/contactnotes.htm

have you ever taken a law class? the previous quote was taken from the cornell article that you posted. did you bother reading it? can you repeat it in your own words?

Lawforcops.com is a website devoted to educating police officers in Missouri and Kansas

PURPOSE: This directive establishes policy and sets forth guidance for conducting “voluntary contacts” and “investigative stops” by U.S. Mint Police
officers.
2. SCOPE: This directive applies to all U.S. Mint Police.


how is this relevant?

then google the one for Arizona.. we still have one constitution, you know..;-)

The first legal challenge to SB1070, the controversial new Arizona law designed to deal with the illegal immigrant issue, has been filed in federal court in Tucson by a Tucson police officer.

Martin Escobar argues in his complaint that, in his experience, there is no way "race neutral" criteria can be utilized to determine if someone he encounters in his daily routine is in this country illegally. The new law requires officers to determine the status of anyone they come into "lawful" contact with during their day.

Escobar argues SB1070 is the product of "racial bias aimed specifically at Hispanics, is unlawful, results in impermissible deprivations of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
He argues the new law violates six components of the federal constitution.

LIna, you should try to live somewhere next to the border. Maybe then your passion for protecting illegals will subside.