Good answer. I was wanting to see if someone would explain it correctly or I would have to post myself. There's a lot of confusion in mainstream about police procedures and civilian responsibility.

"Most of us have seen at least enough cop shows to know police must read a suspect their Miranda rights when placing them in custody."

Wrong!

Most of us have seen enough TV to make us MISINFORMED about the world and what really happens.

To set the record straight, reading of Miranda rights is only MANDATORY when you have arrested someone (or have custody of them and enough evidence to arrest them) and you are interrogating them about the crime. Before you have enough evidence to arrest someone you can continue to question them without mirandizing them until you reasonably believe you have enough information to arrest them. Once this happens, further interrogation only admissible in court if the suspect has been mirandized (read their rights). If an officer arrests someone but does not desire to question them about their crime that officer need not mirandize their suspect. Mathematically, as they teach in police academy:

Miranda= Custody + Interrogation.

Absence of both of those factors, Miranda not necessary.

No Windows, how elitist. Perhaps you should spend the rest of the money on LP Tom Petty and Radiohead albums. Not that there's anything wrong with those artists, I'd just rather get a CD which is cheaper, better, and longer lasting.

"While the storyline is myth — there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee — " In California, the arrestee has a right to 3 FREE phone calls within the local area codes (California Penal Code section 851.5). This has likely been bastardized over time to be what people perceive to be their "only calls" they get. There IS a limit on the phone calls available to an inmate outside of their 3 free ones- that limitation is that they must have friends willing to pay $20 for 15 minutes of collect calls. Which basically means the only calls most inmates get are those 3 free phone calls. As well, phone calls can usually only be made during dayroom hours- usually the 12 hours of the day general population is allowed to be outside of their rooms. My favorite line arrestees always say is, "They didn't read me my Miranda rights!" An officer only has to read you your miranda rights if they question you about your culpability in a case AFTER they've arrested you for that offense (or after they have developed enough information to be able to arrest you). The general rule for Miranda is "Custody (usually arrest) + interrogation." Absent both of those, need not be mirandized (most people aren't).

I imagine this would be mapped from the brains of "like" individuals- not necessarily of the same sex, race, etc, but usually from one geographic area. The problem with is that maybe this is not how all brains "map" learned things, but maybe a result of western thinking/education. Perhaps native Americans, who might view trees as just as close to humans as pigs are, might have quite a different "mapping." It would be interesting to see if this was a result of how our education system is (Western species/classification) geared rather than how our brains actually group things (as in, perhaps it is a manifestation of our education system rather than inherent organizational heuristics in the brain).

I'm all ears. Evidence to the contrary? Really, I want to know...

The pictures of "Evidence" shown on the ticket are likely not showing evidence of the speed infraction, but of the car that committed the speed infraction. A radar or lidar gun was pointed down the street, observed a car speeding, then took pictures of the offending vehicle as it moved up to the stop light (pictures from the rear of vehicle more likely to show plates, some people don't like to put plates on front of their car). Analogy: a shooting is committed, when the officers arrive they take picture of the suspect. The suspect presents these pictures in court and says, "Look, your honor, this "Evidence" doesn't show me with the guns in my hand, therefore they prove I didn't do it." Ummmm, no.

Great regulation; in addition to their minds being corrupted, the kids are going to be falling asleep during school as well.

Here's a simple breakdown. Number 1- the mother must know she does not have the RIGHT to fly, and therefore is subject to any whims the TSA has. She is consenting to the act by merely flying, if she doesn't want to be searched, no one is going to force her to be, all she has to do is leave. Flying is not a right. This is not a message in defense of TSA, it is merely fact. This is why she got convicted. Due to her behavior, it clearly made TSA nervous. And when people get nervous, they have to, for security and safety reasons, devout more personnel and time to that person. Because of this, they had less resources to search and secure all the rest of the passengers, any of whom who could be wanting to do harm. This mother, likely knowing what was going to happen once she got there, and though she has a right to be upset, caused the TSA to be distracted from their duties. She chose to act in such a way that the process was less secure for other people. Even if she only delayed 1 other person 1 second, she committed the crime she was found guilty of. And she would have. If you watch the video you can see how many agents they had dealing with her, and how calmly they were trying to do it to avoid such a situation. BTW, she only got a slap on the wrist, which is deserved and far less than what she could have gotten.

True, true enough about the bad guys overhearing the police transmissions in the back of the radio car. But at this point, they've already been caught. And if they happen to overhear traffic concerning a friend who's about to be arrested, they can't do anything about it because they're handcuffed, without cell phone, and probably won't get their calls in a jail for at least an hour or so. It's all about officer safety so the gangsters, bank robbers, etc, can't know the officers are coming to get them and thus prepare their offense better.

Not gonna happen. It's not a single key encryption they're using. The key would only be good for one transmission if broken. Then the next transmission is done with a randomly generated OTHER key.

The problem is, by the time they figured out the key, it's days later and Freedom of Information Act could have been faster. And their key is no longer good because it switches keys with every new transmission. They would, in addition to breaking the key, have to know the randomly ordered next set of keys. Since each one of those is physically programmed into each radio, not gonna happen.

People are so paranoid nowadays. Let's say everytime they fingerprinted you, they retained a copy, and submitted them to the Dept. of Justice to do a criminal check. The only people that would have anything to worry about are criminals. All they are doing is logging you, same as using a user name and password. Just quicker. And less foolable. Boohoo.

In California, if a you refuse a breathalyzer or urine sample, your license is AUTOMATICALLY revoked for one year. When you get your license here, you sign a paper saying that you consent to either test if you are asked to perform one. Whereas if you consent, and you are arrested for DUI, you in some circumstances retain your driving privileges pending a hearing with the DMV.

Want to prevent lives from being destroyed because of some dumb ass. Every "point" is an analogy. All listed crimes are reckless, but none of them resulted in anyone's injury. They are all illegal because of the likelihood that, if not stopped, they will result in injury to someone else. I don't get how people can even defend people who drive drunk- they are reckless, and don't care about anyone but themselves. Why do you think people should have the right to recklessly endanger someone else's life? Because that is what you are defending, unless you are just saying that in addition to being arrested and convicted, that they should not be publicly shamed?