If you notice ruling was from an event in 2007. This was probably one of the incidents that let to police departments having to get warrants for phones. While this is interesting because it shows that law enforcement can't do it without a warrant, I would be surprised if any of them did it anyways.

Our local police department hasn't been able to for at least 4 years, they aren't even supposed to open/look through your wallet.

That data is calculated by looking at police reports, the police reports are not perfect. With fatalities they have to guess a lot of information, unless you find a cell phone in mid-text/phone call, plate of food on the person's lap, or something you're not going to be able to determine if they were distracted. Likewise people would be reluctant to admit if they were doing something distracting if it resulted in someone's death. Frankly 16% is way higher than I would be, but probably about 1/3 of what it really is.

Just think about it, what causes car accidents? A very small percentage is going to be unavoidable to someone paying attention, animals, falling rocks, extreme weather, etc. Almost all are going to be people being reckless, distracted or drunk.

They are making no such claim. Yes they are searching everyone without a warrant / PC / RS, but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.

There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason (we obviously are going to have different interpretations on what is reasonable), for example pretty much saying the word 'bomb' at the airport regardless of the context will most likely result in getting detaining, that seems reasonable to me.

Flying is an optional activity, you subject your self/property to search in exchange for the privilege of not having to drive/train/boat/etc.

With appropriate clarification/modifiers for "walking" and "public roads", I would say yes. (For example, freeways are public, but you can't walk on them.)

From TFA: Why not just give up my liquids and/or tell them medical info?

Because it's a violation of my 4th amendment rights, and because the law (including TSA rules) do not require me to do so. (Not to mention, they're not HIPAA compliant)

I tried to be extremely polite throughout, even though I was pretty angry. I don't think that yelling helps anything. But there's a big difference between being polite, and giving in to an unlawful demand.

I don't believe that I should have to give up my privacy *or* my ability to bring with me liquids of my choice. Their job is simply to make sure that what I bring isn't an explosive, and I totally support that. If they want to x-ray, ETD, LCS scan, whatever, I'm perfectly cool with it.

Maybe you should have read the article...
His own question implies that he would have been allowed in with his juice if he provided the medical reason why it is needed. Without a medical reason you don't have a "medical liquid" you have a "liquid".

He can't have it both ways; you can't claim to be exempt from normal procedure based on a disability and then refuse to provide any information about it.

Also "policy" is not the same as "law".

I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stuff to not be controlled, but it shouldn't really hurt anyone (running, balling themselves up, etc)' level.

BTW being tased isn't a big deal, it is not like on TV, after the 5 seconds, you are fine, you can hop right back up. That is the problem, a taser is a 'pain-compliance' tool, like pressure points, if someone wants to they can go right back to fighting, or at least resisting right after the 5 seconds, so the cop will use it again, etc. That is how you get stories of cops tasing someone 15 times, because (in theory) the person continued to resist 14 times.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=43107

In Hawaii they recently passed a cellphone law, but emergency workers in the performance of their duties are except. I'm assuming that is a fairly standard practice.

The police aren't going to do anything about it. They *might* make a quick pass thru the area before relaying that they were unable to find the vehicle.

All you are doing it taking up valuable time away from the 911 call takers, police dispatchers and police officers.