DOCSLIB.ORG

State of NM Office of Attorney General

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of NM Office of Attorney General State of New Mexico Office of the Attorney General SEARCH AND SEIZURE FOR POLICE AND PROSECUTORS Checklists and Case law Summaries TABLE OF CONTENTS HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL ..............................................................................................................1 SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITS .......................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3 ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................5 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL AFFIDAVITS ..................................................................................6 OUTLINE ...................................................................................................................6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................8 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................12 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS ..............................................................................................15 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................15 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................17 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................20 CITIZEN-INFORMANTS ........................................................................................................22 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................22 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................24 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................26 ANONYMOUS INFORMANT OR CRIMESTOPPERS TIP ............................................................27 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................27 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................29 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................30 CONTROLLED BUY ..............................................................................................................31 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................31 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................32 i ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................33 POLICE INVESTIGATION OR REPORTS .................................................................................34 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................34 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................35 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................37 EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT ..................................................................................................39 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................39 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................40 MEETING THE KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE REQUIREMENT ......................................................41 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................41 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................43 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................47 DETAINING AND SEARCHING PEOPLE ON THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED .........................50 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................50 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................51 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................53 SEIZURE OF ITEMS FOUND IN PLAIN VIEW ..........................................................................55 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................55 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................56 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................58 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ......................................................................................60 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................60 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................62 CONSENT TO STOP AND SEARCH .........................................................................................65 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................65 ii SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................67 I. CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERS. ...........................................................67 II. CONSENSUAL SEARCHES. ................................................................67 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................71 STOPPING A PERSON OR VEHICLE .......................................................................................74 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................74 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................77 I. COMMUNITY CARETAKING ENCOUNTERS. .......................................77 II. INVESTIGATORY STOPS. ..................................................................78 III. BORDER STOPS AND OTHER ROADBLOCKS. ...................................82 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................84 SEARCHING A PERSON ........................................................................................................90 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................90 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................92 I. PAT DOWNS. ....................................................................................92 II. SEARCH OF A PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST. ...................................94 III. INVENTORY SEARCH OF A PERSON. ..................................................96 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................98 SEARCHING A VEHICLE .....................................................................................................102 OUTLINE ...............................................................................................................102 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................106 I. SEARCH OF A VEHICLE INCIDENT TO ARREST. ................................106 II. INVENTORY SEARCH OF AN IMPOUNDED VEHICLE. ........................106 III. SEARCH OF A VEHICLE BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE PLUS EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. ...................................................109 iii IV. SEARCH OF A VEHICLE DURING A BORDER PATROL STOP. .............................................................................................111 V. SEIZING CONTRABAND OR OTHER EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW DURING A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A VEHICLE. .......................................................................................112 SEARCHING A PLACE .........................................................................................................119 OUTLINE ...............................................................................................................119 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................124 I. SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST. ......................................................124 II. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE DOCTRINE.............................................125 III. PROBABLE CAUSE PLUS EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. ......................126 IV. SEARCHING A STUDENT ON SCHOOL PREMISES. .............................129
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment Litigation
    Still the American Frontier: Fourth Amendment Litigation Deja Vishny September 2012 United States Constitution: The Fourth Amendment 1 Wisconsin State Constitution Article 1 Sec. 11 The Exclusionary Rule The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Attenuation Inevitable Discovery Independent Source Other exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Applicability of the Fourth Amendment: The Expectation of Privacy Cars Sample list of areas the court has found to private and non-private. Deemed Non-Private: Standing & Overnight Guests Searches by Private Parties Requirement of Search Warrant Determination of probable cause Definition of the Home: Curtilage Permissible scope of search warrants Plain View Good Faith Knock and Announce Challenging Search Warrants Permissible warrantless entries and searches in homes and businesses Exception: Search Incident to Arrest Exception: Protective Sweep Exception: Plain View Exception: Exigent Circumstances : The Emergency Doctrine Exception: Exigent Circumstances: Hot Pursuit Exception: Imminent Destruction of Evidence Warrantless searches without entry Consent Searches Who may consent to entry and searches of the home Scope of consent Seizures of Persons: The Terry Doctrine Defining a Seizure Permissible Length of Temporary Seizures Permissible reasons for a Seizure: 2 Seizures bases on anonymous tips Seizures on Public Transportation Requests for Identification Roadblocks: Reasonable Suspicion: Frisk of Suspects Scope of Terry Frisk Seizures of Property Arrest Probable Cause for Arrest Warrantless
    [Show full text]
  • Drawing a Line Between Terry and Miranda: the Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M
    Drawing a Line between Terry and Miranda: The Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M. Swifit INTRODUCTION A felon answered the door in his underwear. Three police officers and three parole officers were there to search his apartment for a gun on the basis of a tip from his mother.! The police handcuffed him in the hallway outside his apartment, but told him he was not under ar- rest; the handcuffs were for his safety and the safety of the officers. Then they took him inside and asked about the gun, which he told them was in a shoebox on the table. The police never read the suspect his Miranda warnings. Was he "in custody"? Or was this merely a tem- porary detention? Mirandav Arizona' held that police may not interrogate a suspect who has been taken into custody without first issuing the familiar warnings Investigative stops, valid under Terry v Ohio,' are not sub- ject to Miranda's notice requirements.! Courts have not settled on a workable rule for determining custody in Terry stop cases. Part of the problem is that custody cases involve so many factors.! But more im- portant, coercive police behavior that would have required Miranda warnings in 1966 often is deemed reasonable under Terry today. This has led to a circuit split over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody. The First, Fourth, and Eighth circuits hold t B.A., BJ. 1998, University of Missouri-Columbia; J.D. 2006, The University of Chicago. I The facts used in this example are drawn from United States v Newton, 369 F3d 659, 663 (2d Cir 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Mexico Office of the Attorney General
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT THEREON FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 STATE OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) JUNE 30, 2019 INTRODUCTORY SECTION: Official Roster ....................................................................................................................... iii FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors’ Report .......................................................................................... 1 – 3 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .......................................................................... 4 – 9 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ..................................................................................... 10 Statement of Activities .......................................................................................... 11 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds ............................................................ 12-13 Reconciliation of Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position ........................................................................... 14 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds .............................................................................. 15-16 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds to
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 59 Issue 2 Article 3 3-2006 Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches Craig S. Lerner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Craig S. Lerner, Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches, 59 Vanderbilt Law Review 407 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol59/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches Craig S. Lerner 59 Vand. L. Rev. 407 (2006) In Terry v. Ohio, Earl Warren held that police officers could temporarily detain a suspect, provided that they relied upon "specific, reasonable inferences," and not simply upon an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch."' Since Terry, courts have strained to distinguish "reasonablesuspicion," which is said to arise from the cool analysis of objective and particularized facts, from "mere hunches," which are said to be subjective, generalized, unreasoned and therefore unreliable. Yet this dichotomy between facts and intuitions is built on sand. Emotions and intuitions are not obstacles to reason, but indispensable heuristic devices that allow people to process diffuse, complex information about their environment and make sense of the world. The legal rules governing police conduct are thus premised on a mistaken assumption about human cognition. This Article argues that the legal system can defer, to some extent, to police officers' intuitions without undermining meaningful protections against law enforcement overreaching.
    [Show full text]
  • “Canned History”: American Newsreels and The
    “Canned History”: American Newsreels and the Commodification of Reality, 1927-1945 By Joseph E.J. Clark B.A., University of British Columbia, 1999 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2001 M.A., Brown University, 2004 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of American Civilization at Brown University Providence, Rhode Island May, 2011 © Copyright 2010, by Joseph E.J. Clark This dissertation by Joseph E.J. Clark is accepted in its present form by the Department of American Civilization as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date:____________ _________________________________ Professor Susan Smulyan, Co-director Date:____________ _________________________________ Professor Philip Rosen, Co-director Recommended to the Graduate Council Date:____________ _________________________________ Professor Lynne Joyrich, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date:____________ _________________________________ Dean Peter Weber, Dean of the Graduate School iii Curriculum Vitae Joseph E.J. Clark Date of Birth: July 30, 1975 Place of Birth: Beverley, United Kingdom Education: Ph.D. American Civilization, Brown University, 2011 Master of Arts, American Civilization, Brown University, 2004 Master of Arts, History, University of British Columbia, 2001 Bachelor of Arts, University of British Columbia, 1999 Teaching Experience: Sessional Instructor, Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, Simon Fraser University, Spring 2010 Sessional Instructor, Department of History, Simon Fraser University, Fall 2008 Sessional Instructor, Department of Theatre, Film, and Creative Writing, University of British Columbia, Spring 2008 Teaching Fellow, Department of American Civilization, Brown University, 2006 Teaching Assistant, Brown University, 2003-2004 Publications: “Double Vision: World War II, Racial Uplift, and the All-American Newsreel’s Pedagogical Address,” in Charles Acland and Haidee Wasson, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Pretrial Release Order, Or Witnesses the Suspect Commit a Misdemeanor
    Ch. 14: Suppression Motions 14.2 Warrants and Illegal Searches and Seizures A. Generally The primary constitutional grounds for excluding evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and article I, section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. There are numerous situations in which a search or seizure may violate these provisions. For example, the evidence may have been obtained during a seizure that was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause; in a search without probable cause or a valid consent to search; through outrageous police misconduct (in violation of the Fifth Amendment); or without a warrant when a warrant was required. The focus of this section is on the last category: searches and seizures in violation of warrant requirements. Discussed below are some common violations. For a discussion of limits on warrantless searches and seizures, see infra Ch. 15, Stops and Warrantless Searches. B. Search Warrants Warrant requirement and exceptions. Generally, before entering a person’s home or searching his or her car, personal property, or person, the police must obtain a warrant, based on “probable cause” to believe that the evidence being sought is in the place to be searched. See generally Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11, 13 (1999) (per curiam) (“A warrantless search by the police is invalid unless it falls within one of the narrow and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement[.]” (citation omitted)); N.C. CONST. art. I, sec. 20 (“General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.”).
    [Show full text]
  • The Minor Courts of Wyoming
    Wyoming Law Journal Volume 15 Number 1 Article 2 December 2019 The Minor Courts of Wyoming James Daley Harry Harnesberger, Jr. Floyd King NettaBell Soderholm Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlj Recommended Citation James Daley, Harry Harnesberger, Jr., Floyd King, & NettaBell Soderholm, The Minor Courts of Wyoming, 15 WYO. L.J. 22 (1960) Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlj/vol15/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wyoming Law Journal by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. THE MINOR COURTS OF WYOMING* I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE This paper is a discussion of the history, organization, effectiveness and suggested reformation of the minor courts of Wyoming. The term "minor courts" includes the justice of the peace and police courts provided by the constitution and statutes of this state. To the extent that any article suggesting comprehensive judicial reform must consider related courts, the article will also discuss the district court system. The basis for many of the conclusions reached by the authors is a questionnaire circulated by the Wyoming Law Journal among the district judges, police judges and justices of the peace, at the end of 1959. The answers reflected a wiclespread dissatisfaction with the present system particularly among the lawyers who were serving as justices. This article will summarize the particular complaints and present some of the solutions which have been attempted by other states. II. ORIGIN The office of Justice of the Peace was first created in England during the reign of Edward III in the fourteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SEARCH for COMPACT BINARY COALESCENCE in ASSOCIATION with SHORT GRBS with LIGO/VIRGO S5/VSR1 DATA by Nickolas V Fotopoulos
    THE SEARCH FOR COMPACT BINARY COALESCENCE IN ASSOCIATION WITH SHORT GRBS WITH LIGO/VIRGO S5/VSR1 DATA By Nickolas V Fotopoulos ATHESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHYSICS at The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee May 2010 THE SEARCH FOR COMPACT BINARY COALESCENCE IN ASSOCIATION WITH SHORT GRBS WITH LIGO/VIRGO S5/VSR1 DATA By Nickolas V Fotopoulos ATHESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHYSICS at The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee May 2010 Jolien Creighton Date Graduate School Approval Date ii THE SEARCH FOR COMPACT BINARY COALESCENCE IN ASSOCIATION WITH SHORT GRBS WITH LIGO/VIRGO S5/VSR1 DATA By Nickolas V Fotopoulos The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, 2010 Under the Supervision of Professor Jolien Creighton ABSTRACT During LIGO’s fifth science run (S5) and Virgo’s first science run (VSR1), x-ray and gamma-ray observatories recorded 33 short, hard gamma-ray bursts (short GRBs), 22 of which had high quality data in two or more detectors. The most convincing explanation for the majority of short GRBs is that in the final stages of an inspiral between a neutron star and a companion compact object, the neutron star is tidally disrupted, providing material to accrete, heat, and eject on sub-second timescales. I describe a search for the gravitational-wave signatures of compact binary coalescence in the vicinity of short GRBs that occurred during S5/VSR1. Jolien Creighton Date iii © Copyright 2010 by Nickolas V Fotopoulos iv to Mom and Bub v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix List of Tables xi List of Figures xiv 1 Introduction 1 2 Short GRBs, CBCs, and gravitational waves 3 2.1 Short gamma-ray burst phenomenology .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3: the Search & Call Process in the United Church of Christ
    United Church of Christ SEARCH AND CALL A Pilgrimage through Transitions and New Beginnings SECTION THREE THE SEARCH AND CALL PROCESS in The United Church of Christ “I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion….” Philippians 1:6a SECTION THREE THE SEARCH AND CALL PROCESS in The United Church of Christ I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion…. Philippians 1:6a “A Call, not a Job; a Vocation, not an Occupation” APPROACHING THE TASK: GOD’S COMMITTEE Selecting a Search Committee Just as the local church is not “our” church but rather God’s, so too the Search Committee is really God’s committee. A search for a new pastor is one of the most spiritual ministries in the church. The selection of Search Committee members is a task that is approached with prayer, wisdom, sensitivity, and awareness that God may be calling certain church members to consider serving in this particular capacity.1 One “best practice” for committee selection includes publicizing the criteria for membership on the Search Committee and inviting persons in the congregation Submitting to submit nominations to the governing board. nominations is one of Submitting nominations is one of the many ways that the many ways that the entire congregation can be informed about and included in the search process; it should be made the entire clear, however, that not all nominees will be congregation can be selected. Those who submit nominations should informed about and include a brief description of the reasons why that included in the search person would be an asset to the committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Police-Media Relations
    0EASTHAMPTON POLICE Department Manual: DEPARTMENT Policy No. 1.08 Subject: Searches & Seizures MASSACHUSETTS POLICE ACCREDITATION GENERAL ORDER STANDARDS REFERENCED: 1.2.4, a, b, c, d, e, f, g; 74.3.1 M.G.L. Chapter 276 Section 2D (12/21/20) Issue Date: 01-17- Issuing Authority 2021 Robert J. Alberti Effective Date: 01- Robert J. Alberti 27-2021 Chief of Police I. General Considerations and Guidelines: The term “searches and seizures” includes the examination of persons or places for the discovery of contraband, property stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained or held, or of evidence of the commission of crime, and the taking into legal custody of such property or evidence for presentation to the court. Failure to comply with the legal technicalities which govern these procedures results in more failures to obtain convictions than any other source. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to require that, whenever possible and practicable, with certain limited exceptions, a police officer should always obtain a valid search warrant in advance.1 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Page 1 Article XIV of the Massachusetts Constitution provides as follows: Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:10-Cr-00186-GP Document 25 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 10
    Case 2:10-cr-00186-GP Document 25 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : KAREEM RUSSELL, : NO. 10-186-1 Defendant. : MEMORANDUM GENE E.K. PRATTER, J. APRIL 27, 2011 Defendant Kareem Russell is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Currently before the Court is Mr. Russell’s motion to suppress evidence, a Smith & Wesson Sigma .40 caliber pistol, which officers from the Cheltenham Township Police Department and the Philadelphia Police Department recovered on April 1, 2007 during the execution of a search warrant of 1040 E. Howell Street in Philadelphia. The Court held a hearing on the Motion during which the parties presented evidence and arguments. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Mr. Russell’s Motion. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts are established by the evidence presented and the testimony of Detective Daniel M. Schaefer at the suppression hearing. In March 2007, the Cheltenham Township Police Department was investigating the robbery of Ok Ja Choi in Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania and the subsequent theft of her identity. The investigation uncovered information that implied Mr. Russell’s involvement in the criminal activity, which prompted Detective Richard Schaffer to obtain a warrant of Mr. Russell’s residence at 1040 E. Howell Street for the search and seizure of: Case 2:10-cr-00186-GP Document 25 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 10 Any personal identifiers to include documents, identification cards, personal checks or credit cards for Ok Ja Choi.
    [Show full text]