IN THE FIRST VIGNETTE, 'WHEN QEUSTIONING IS PERMITTED', ROBBERS KIDNAP A DIABETIC GIRL FROM A SMALL GROCERY STORE REALIZNG SHE CAN IDENTIFY THEM. DURING THE EVENTUAL ARREST OF THE SUSPECTS, OFFICERS ASK AND LEARN WHERE THE GIRL IS WITHOUT FIRST GIVING MIRANDA WARNINGS. THE GIRL IS THEN TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL BEFORE THE DEPRIVATION OF INSULIN DURING HER CAPTURE PROVES FATAL. THE NARRATOR POINTS OUT THAT UNDER THE 'RESCUE DOCTRINE', THE VOLUNTARILY GIVEN INCRIMINATING REPLY REVEALING THE GIRL'S WHEREABOUTS, ALTHOUGH MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA, IS PERMISSIBLE COURT EVIDENCE SINCE AN EMERGENCY EXISTED. WHEN THE EMERGENCY IS OVER, THIS SAME VIGNETTE FURTHER ILLUSTRATES THAT IF A SUSPECT INDICATES HE WANTS TO INVOKE HIS RIGHT OF SILENCE, QUESTIONING MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY - AND THAT IT CAN BE RESUMED LATER IF VOLUNTARY AND IF PROPER MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE THEN GIVEN. IN 'WHEN MIRANDA IS NOT FOLLOWED', A DRUNK DRIVER REARENDS A PATROL CAR. THE STATEMENTS MADE IN REPLY TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER'S QUESTIONING - THOUGH MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA ADMONITIONS - ARE SHOWN TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL AND MOST STATE COURTS FOR THE NARROW PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT OF A DEFENDANT WHO HAD TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF - NOT, HOWEVER, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHERE 'ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA ARE NOT INADMISSIBLE FOR ALL PURPOSES'. 'IN RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING', A MINOR WHO IS ARRESTED STEALING A TAPE DECK FROM A CAR ASKS TO CALL HIS MOTHER. THIS REQUEST IS DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO AN ADULT'S ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND APPLIES EVEN BEFORE THE SUSPECT IS MIRANDIZED. THIS SEQUENCE ALSO SHOWS THAT RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS INDICATE LATER RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING CAN OCCUR IF CERTAIN STRICT QUALIFICATIONS ARE MET. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT) (SNI ABSTRACT)