If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Silver City Sun)   Granted that it's harder to pass the sobriety tests with one leg..But this guy has had 7 chances   (scsun-news.com) divider line 26
    More: Dumbass, prosthetic leg, gravity  
•       •       •

4854 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 2:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-08 12:23:25 AM
Huh, Silver City made fark. Where the cowboys smoke pot and the hippies carry guns.
 
2013-04-08 02:49:26 AM

violentsalvation: Huh, Silver City made fark. Where the cowboys smoke pot and the hippies carry guns.


IOW, Arizona?
 
2013-04-08 03:00:42 AM
I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.
 
2013-04-08 03:34:30 AM
As if life didn't suck for him already, he is now on the internet to be laughed at.
 
2013-04-08 03:37:12 AM
www.dvdtalk.com
 
2013-04-08 03:40:11 AM

UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.


Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."
 
2013-04-08 03:40:15 AM
I find the breathalizer test to be unfair to asthmatics. Seriously, if I can't push the needle on an peak flow meter, how do you expect me to do a damn breathalizer test?
 
2013-04-08 03:43:11 AM

Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."


Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!
 
2013-04-08 03:46:31 AM

AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!


With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.
 
2013-04-08 03:49:27 AM

UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.


Depends on your state, to be honest.  In my state, Indiana, you can refuse the roadside tests, but that won't get you very far in most places.  There's case law here that the odor of alcohol is enough to trigger probable cause to believe a person is intoxicated.  I don't subscribe to that theory, however, since it's legal to drive after drinking; it's just not legal to drive impaired after drinking.

I've had people refuse the field sobriety tests before, but it never gets them out of an OWI investigation.  For me, after doing this for awhile and knowing what indicia to look for, all I really need to do is speak to a person at the window for a few moments to know whether or not I'll be getting a certified test from them.  I can typically establish impairment through spoken word, eyes, dexterity, and odor.  All of that, is MORE than enough where I work to show probable cause for impairment.

Here, when you get your license, you're implying your consent to a certified test (blood, breath, urine or any combination of the three as determined by the officer) upon the establishment of probable cause by the officer.  If you refuse on your first offense, it's an immediate 1 year license suspension, regardless of how the case adjudicates out.  On your second offense, it's an immediate 2 year license suspension.

Once I've offered them a chance to consent to the test, and they refuse, I simply apply for a search warrant to seize blood evidence from them, using reasonable force to do so.  I've never had one of those applications turned down, personally, but know people who have.  Once that's been signed off on by a judge, the blood is taken by a registered nurse and transported to a laboratory for testing.

Refusing all the tests will make it difficult on the officer, but won't get you out of the investigation or resultant charges.  If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it.
 
2013-04-08 03:52:49 AM

Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."


See, the problem with that is, you only have a right to a lawyer while being questioned.  The seizure of evidence isn't an interrogation, and as such, you have no right to legal counsel at that point (in most jurisdictions).

It also has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

What you suggest might sound good and look good in court, but any GOOD officer will have all his bases covered and the narrations to the camera won't matter.
 
2013-04-08 03:55:17 AM

Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.


Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.
 
2013-04-08 04:04:38 AM

violentsalvation: Huh, Silver City made fark. Where the cowboys smoke pot and the hippies carry guns.


Some college friends and I are having a reunion of some sort in Silver City this Memorial Day weekend (they have a small blues festival).  Just a quirky thing for the two of us that live in NM.  Everyone else would be coming down from Denver.
 
2013-04-08 04:15:17 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Depends on your state, to be honest.  In my state, Indiana, you can refuse the roadside tests, but that won't get you very far in most places.  There's case law here that the odor of alcohol is enough to trigger probable cause to believe a person is intoxicated.  I don't subscribe to that theory, however, since it's legal to drive after drinking; it's just not legal to drive impaired after drinking.

I've had people refuse the field sobriety tests before, but it never gets them out of an OWI investigation.  For me, after doing this for awhile and knowing what indicia to look for, all I really need to do is speak to a person at the window for a few moments to know whether or not I'll be getting a certified test from them.  I can typically establish impairment through spoken word, eyes, dexterity, and odor.  All of that, is MORE than enough where I work to show probable cause for impairment.

Here, when you get your license, you're implying your consent to a certified test (blood, breath, urine or any combination of the three as determined by the officer) upon the establishment of probable cause by the officer.  If you refuse on your first offense, it's an immediate 1 year license suspension, regardless of how the case adjudicates out.  On your second offense, it's an immediate 2 year license suspension.

Once I've offered them a chance to consent to the test, and they refuse, I simply apply for a search warrant to seize blood evidence from them, using reasonable force to do so.  I've never had one of those applications turned down, personally, but know people who have.  Once that's been signed off on by a judge, the blood is taken by a registered nurse and transported to a laboratory for testing.

Refusing all the tests will make it difficult on the officer, but won't get you out of the investigation or resultant charges.  If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it.


In my state I have heard you can refuse a breath test on the condition you get a blood test within an hour, or something similar, because the breath test is not quite accurate. I think the main no-no is agreeing to a field test, which is way more likely to give you a false positive than get you out of arrest. I know police can legally bullshiat you during an interview, but they would have to answer correctly if you asked "do I have the right to refuse?", correct? I know you have to get a straight answer if you ask if you are under arrest (or free to go.)
 
2013-04-08 04:17:10 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.


Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops who failed to keep their story straight on the stand.  Plus the police report mentioned a previous defendant and one of the officers admitted he used a template to write his report.
 
2013-04-08 04:22:45 AM

UsikFark: HideAndGoFarkYourself: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Depends on your state, to be honest.  In my state, Indiana, you can refuse the roadside tests, but that won't get you very far in most places.  There's case law here that the odor of alcohol is enough to trigger probable cause to believe a person is intoxicated.  I don't subscribe to that theory, however, since it's legal to drive after drinking; it's just not legal to drive impaired after drinking.

I've had people refuse the field sobriety tests before, but it never gets them out of an OWI investigation.  For me, after doing this for awhile and knowing what indicia to look for, all I really need to do is speak to a person at the window for a few moments to know whether or not I'll be getting a certified test from them.  I can typically establish impairment through spoken word, eyes, dexterity, and odor.  All of that, is MORE than enough where I work to show probable cause for impairment.

Here, when you get your license, you're implying your consent to a certified test (blood, breath, urine or any combination of the three as determined by the officer) upon the establishment of probable cause by the officer.  If you refuse on your first offense, it's an immediate 1 year license suspension, regardless of how the case adjudicates out.  On your second offense, it's an immediate 2 year license suspension.

Once I've offered them a chance to consent to the test, and they refuse, I simply apply for a search warrant to seize blood evidence from them, using reasonable force to do so.  I've never had one of those applications turned down, personally, but know people who have.  Once that's been sign ...


Every state is going to be different.  Here, there's a three hour window from time of stop to get a certified test to make things "easy" in court.  If some circumstances cause that three hour window to elapse, all that means is that the prosecution has to being in a toxicologist to testify to the elimination of alcohol in the blood, and testify to the person's BAC at the time of the stop.

The Portable, or Preliminary, tests given on the side of the road are not, in most states, admissible in court.  All they're able to show is a positive or negative presence of alcohol.  Being that they're not certified, they're often deemed inadmissible as to their BAC reading.

You do have a right to refuse in most states that I've heard of, but that doesn't mean you get to go home and get off scott-free.  As I detailed above, in Indiana, if you refuse, you automatically lose your license for at least a year, and the officer applies for a search warrant for blood.  If a person ever asked me if they have a right to refuse, I would simply say "yes, you do have the right, but as I said, if you refuse to submit to a certified test, your license will automatically be suspended for a year.  I will also detain you and apply for a search warrant to draw your blood."

If an officer lied and said a person had no right to consent, that'd likely be seen as coercion.
 
2013-04-08 04:25:43 AM

Oxygen_Thief: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.

Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops who failed to keep their st ...


I once saw an officer testifying to his report and he'd obviously used a template to write it.  Halfway through the name and gender of the defendant switched, as did the entire circumstance surrounding the incident.  What you had there was a deputy prosecutor who ended up losing his job because he had never actually read the damn case report and simply took it to trial because it was a folder on his desk.  The officer resigned after realizing that he was never going to be seen as credible again.  It's a shame too, because he was a good street cop, just not a good paperwork cop.
 
2013-04-08 04:28:54 AM

Oxygen_Thief: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.

Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops who failed to keep their st ...


oh and refusal to take the test is treated as evidence of guilt of DWI.
 
2013-04-08 04:30:50 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Oxygen_Thief: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.

Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops who failed to ...


Where?  Certainly not in Indiana.  Here jurors are specifically instructed not to use a person's refusal as evidence of their guilt.  I'd be interested to know where this is the case.
 
2013-04-08 04:35:15 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Oxygen_Thief: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.

Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops who failed to ...


Yeah when the cop said that the sails went out of the DA's case immediately   I have some sympathy though because in my jurisdiction the DA cannot drop or reduce a DWI charge by rule.  A defendant must plead guilty or go to trial.  Only offense that carries that caveat.
 
2013-04-08 04:37:35 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Oxygen_Thief: Oxygen_Thief: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Maus III: AlanSmithee: Maus III: UsikFark: I'm pretty sure the field sobriety tests are not the best thing to consent to. Neither is a Breathalyzer, if your state allows you to alternatively consent to a blood test. Any fark-lawyers want to elaborate? The idea is to avoid doing or saying things that can be used against you when the action or statement is completely voluntary on your part.

Refuse ALL tests. Make them - on video tape - handcuff you to a chair and take blood all the while looking into the camera and saying: "I do not consent to this. I want my lawyer. This is against my 5th amendment privilege."

Or tell them you're a sovereign citizen. Works like a charm!

With the exception that the method I described is serious and well-based in case law while yours is sarcastic and stupid. Pick one.

Cite the case law, please.

I always like to keep up to date on new rulings.  I have never heard of any standing case law where this tactic was successful in an actual prosecutable case.  It may have worked after some idiot cop and his equally idiot prosecutor took a case to court that never should have been taken to court.  But any good investigation would render everything in your post pointless.

Pretty much this.  It really depends on the State.  In my jurisdiction if you refuse everything the police will charge both DWI and Refusal to submit to the breath test at the station anyway. (carry the exact same penalties in any case.)  So the state essentially gets two bites at the apple.  You can refuse the roadside tests..but as a practical matter that just results in a ride to the station, to blow into the machine there.

Really in my jurisdiction if a cop charges DWI/Refusal you are basically boned, unless your lawyer can convince the judge that the cop lacked probable cause for the stop.

Though I know of a case where a defendant walked, but in that case there was a highly credible defendant coupled with a few cops ...


Arkansas
 
2013-04-08 06:04:37 AM
I got thrown in the slammer after I pulled up to a roadblock where they were supposedly checking for seat belts. A bunch of us had helped a buddy move that day and we all went to a sports bar for a couple of beers when we were through. I had about a half a pitcher of beer and decided to go home. Lawyers had always told me never to blow, so I didn't even though I was probably under .08. Went to city court and was immediately found guilty. Appealed to county court and got it thrown out. Seems there was a statute of some kind that required the mayor's OK 48 hours prior to a set up roadblock. He never signed off on it so I was off the hook, even attorney fees were waived as my attorney was a very good friend.
 
2013-04-08 07:56:25 AM
www.ihop.com
No, actually, it's more of a sway . . .
 
2013-04-08 09:12:33 AM
Many states have "implied consent" laws, meaning that if you operate a motor vehicle in the state, it is implied that you give consent to officers to test you. If you refuse a test, it's an implied consent violation, and they write you a ticket for that, and in TN, you still lose your license for one year. Not sure if it's still an implied consent violation if you refuse the officer's request for field sobriety or breathalyzer, but consent to a blood test. They'd probably be fine with that, but I'm not a lawyer.
 
2013-04-08 10:27:24 AM
No mention of the fact that obvious DWI/DUI stuff doesn't work at all if he is still allowed to drive after his 7th time.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:39 AM

tuna fingers: violentsalvation: Huh, Silver City made fark. Where the cowboys smoke pot and the hippies carry guns.

Some college friends and I are having a reunion of some sort in Silver City this Memorial Day weekend (they have a small blues festival).  Just a quirky thing for the two of us that live in NM.  Everyone else would be coming down from Denver.


I'm hoping to head over there for the Tour of the Gila bicycle races next month.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report