Answer:
B/C U CAN CRASH IF U DONT OR KILL SOMEONE
Explanation:
Answer:
We used them as an hourly shift justification - where we were what we were doing (computers and GPS do it now). If there was an arrest, traffic stop or incident, it was recorded on the call sheet and a small description with any number assigned. The totals were recorded and turned into the shift supervisor - who would take the report, arrest information and any other paperwork necessary.
The paperwork had to match the dispatcher call sheet and could be used by the union to complain about breaks and lunches being missed. The stats from each call sheet was used in reporting to the FBI crime statistics reports and for state and local reporting - ie number of calls, traffic incidents and violent calls.
Explanation:
Hope this will helps
Answer:
It is the duty of Congress to have hearings in order to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee (as stated in the Constitution). This exclusive power rests on the U.S. Senate. The consensus, however, may be different and may vote against a nominee. Political parties within the Senate generally get in the way of who will vote and who won't, and vice-versa.
Explanation:
For example, Merrick Garland (former President Obama's nominee) was not given a hearing. Furthermore, Congress failed to perform the duties to have a hearing and decide whether to vote or deny a nominee. This is an example of how they refused to even vote on him. This is not the way government should operate.
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn't apply and they're not required to be read. (Information from :Miranda warning.com)
This law is unlikely to be constitutional.
The Miranda warning is a type of notification that is given to criminal suspects who are in custody. This warning advises them of their right to remain silent, and that they are allowed to refuse answering questions or providing information to authorities. A case precedent that would support this instance is <em>Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)</em>. In this case, it was established that a person stopped, even for a misdemeanour, should receive the protections of the Fifth Amendment once in custody, regardless of how serious the offense is.
