• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrested for not possessing drivers license and rifile in back seat

fasttimes

New member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

Over the weekend, I was pulled over for speeding somewhere in the County of Los Angeles; it may or may not be an incorporated city. OK, no problem, I got caught in a speeding trap, I'll fight it later. I'm relaxed, but I know they will probably say something about the rifle.

When the offices approached, they started to talk to me, then noticed my .22 rifle in the back seat, and stopped mid-sentence. There attitude changed immediately. They made a statement about the rifle; I forget exactly what they said. I replied it was unloaded and I was carrying it legally.

They asked if I was going to be a problem, and asked for my license. I didn't have my license on me because I had lost it easier that day shooting out in the desert (don't ask me how, I still can't figure it out) and I said so. They asked me a couple more times for an ID of some type, and each time I said I lost it and gave them my name and address (and later even gave my SSN when asked). They clearly thought I was lying, and/or wanted an excuse to search me and the car.

They ordered me to exit the car, frisked me, and put me in the back of their patrol car. Where again, I was asked for ID and I replied the same as above. I also reminded them I hadn't consented to any searches of any kind.

By this time, there were 5 cars and 10 cops on the scene. They were searching the interior of the car, and a bit later, they opened the trunk and searched that. One of the later arriving cops poked his head through the window and threatened me in an enraged manner, "if you don't change your attitude I'll have to deal with me" banging on the squad car window several times. I thought he was going to break it.

I know once they started searching the trunk I must be under arrest and not just being detained, so I refused any further questions (not that I said much before either.) Sure enough, about two minutes later, they put the cuffs on me (nice and tight, of course). Checking to see if the gun was loaded or not was one of the very last things they bothered to do, before they slapped on the cuffs.

I was taken to the station and booked; finger printed twice, and mug shots taken. I was released approximately 9 hours later. They had towed my car "for storage" and I was given release papers for the car, waving all department fees (but I still had to pay $190 for the tow yard fees). The arresting officer even drove me home himself, along with my gun and ammo! Don't know what to make of that.

On the ticket, I was sited for CVC 22350 (Basic Speed Law) and CVC 12951(a) (Possession of License); Both infractions.

I received papers (CHP form 180) today from the department in question stating my car had been towed and where I could pick it up (I already got it back the next day). It stated as reason for storage: CVC 22651(h) which states: (1) When an officer arrests a person driving or in control of a vehicle for an alleged offense and the officer is, by this code or other law, required or permitted to take, and does take, the person into custody.

So, that's where I stand. So, it comes down to did the officer have cause for arrest? I still don't know under what statute I was arrested. When I went to the station for further information, all they said was that I was not arrested! If that's the case, then why was the car stored, as that is the stated reason.

I have 7 more days to request an informal hearing regarding the towing and storage of my car. If I win, I will be reimbursed the costs. If not, it's a $190 lesson to always keep and expired license or ID in the glove compartment at all times.

Could someone please let me know what the CPC or CVC that authorizes arrest in this situation. Also, could someone also let me know the Cal Supreme Court (?) case that struck down the ID card requirements, establishing simply stating Name and Address (and/or DOB?) as adequate identification when demanded by police.

After that, I'll look into further relief that I might be able to avail myself of. How was your Saturday?:?
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

First, the CVC requires you to surrender your license to officers if you're operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. To my knowledge, there is no case law that says otherwise. CA used to have a "stop and identify law" that applied to every person in every public place. That was struck down, but doesn't affect CVC.

One of the two times I've been stopped for a moving violation, I had forgot my ID at home. I recited my DL#, SS#, and DOB. The officer gave me a "fix it" ticket for the license, and another for the moving violation ("excessive smog" apparently, depsite having a smog cert from 60 days prior). I just took my proof to the police station and they signed off my tickets saying I didn't have to appear.

Now, perhaps one of the LE-types can tell you more about arresting for moving violations... I think they technically can do that if they can't verify your ID. It's their way of making sure they have the right person on the ticket so they know who to expect in court. Usually, giving them your DL# is enough to get the DMV record with your physical description. If you don't keep that up to date, they might think you're lying about your identity (e.g: if you died your hair, lost/gained 100lbs, are wearing colored contact lenses, etc.)

As for the searches they performed - totally in violation of the 4A. See Arizona v Gant, which was just decided by SCOTUS last month. If they didn't have a warrant or 'reasonable suspicion' to search for evidence of a crime, then they can't search your car, even incident to an arrest. If they would have found anything illegal, it would be thrown out as evidence. You could complain to the department, the municipality, or even file a complaint with the FBI over the 4A violation. You could even sue, but I doubt that would be fruitful.

The last issue is whether they had the right to take your vehicle. Logically, if it's not obstructing traffic, and not on someone's private property, it should be OK to leave it parked there. However, I've found logic and law usually have little in common.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

I was just going to say the same thing. Arizona v Gant says this violated the 4th. When you are sitting in a patrol car handcuffed, or really outside the vehicle at all, they can not search the vehicle, period. 42 USC 1983. Sue them.

You need to get a voice recorder and get them to say that you weren't arrested again. You WERE arrested, regardless of what they might try to call it. I'm not sure that they can arrest you for that, per CA law.

California is not a stop and identify state, so you don't need to carry any ID on you (obviously a license while driving is required)

Here's what I would do: Go talk to some consumer lawyers. Get EVERYTHING in writing. Record ALL conversations with these guys, if you have any future interactions. You need to get names, addresses, times, dates, and badge numbers.

The last issue is whether they had the right to take your vehicle. Logically, if it's not obstructing traffic, and not on someone's private property, it should be OK to leave it parked there.


I can tell you that the cops can impound your car if they feel it may be vandelized or subject to theft. There are usually policies required for this.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Under Ca Vehicle code 40302a: If you are detained for a vehicle code section, and don't have ID you can be detained for identification reasons (ie transported for finger printing generally and released) and your vehicle stored. The officers get to go into your trunk for an "inventory" search.

Under Federal 4th A. jurisprudence you can be arrested for any public offence (even infractions).

Your only complaint is with the officers attitude and language not there actions.

If you fight the ticket and win you may sue for your tow fees in small claims possibly.
 

fasttimes

New member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

cato wrote:
Under Ca Vehicle code 40302a: If you are detained for a vehicle code section, and don't have ID you can be detained for identification reasons (ie transported for finger printing generally and released) and your vehicle stored. The officers get to go into your trunk for an "inventory" search.
OK, there is the statute I was looking for and couldn't locate. As expected, the arrest seems to be legal (but still motivated not by my lack of ID, but the rifle) thus making the tow/storage legal (22651(h)(1)). At least until I fight and win the ticket. The search of the trunk may or may not be legal; There is some disagreement, but the trespass was relatively minor AFAIK.

Interestingly, does this not also apply to a person walking about the street? They may j-walk or commit some other minor CVC violation (or officers at least say they did) thus eliminating much of the protections gained from decision regarding the Stop and ID statute? At least on a street, or any publicly accessible private property, like parking lots?

The lesson i learned: Don't throw away your expired IDs/DLs. Keep one in every vehicle you use. This should prove your ID if you happen to loose your license or forget your wallet while on the road, or until a replacement arrives. I have already done this for the future.

Some further information: I did know my DL# partially, but was not sure about the last 4 numbers, so I did not give that information, fearing that if I was incorrect, they would ad an additional charge of Giving false Information to a Police Officer!
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

Here's what I'm thinking.

You got stopped for speed. 22350VC basic speed. Violation is not based on posted speed limit but on speed safe for conditions. Most traffic cops give about 10mph over posted before citing depending on the road and traffic conditions. Judges like usingthe 85th percentile in the speed survey for that street as a guide for wheter yourspeed was unsafe.Speed survey should me made available to you on request (discovery motion). By the way, no speed survey does not automatically give you an out.You will either pay or you won't. No problem.

You didn't have your DL on you. Problem. It's your own fault that you didn't have it. The law says no DL in possession / no drive. Bad Fasttime, Bad. VC violation combined with the deputy's inability to properly ID you potentially puts you in the pot. Inability to ID you makes you eligable for being taken into custody until such an ID is possible. The fact that you had a rifle in the car (I know, I know it was legal) and were in LA county (incorporated or not makes no difference)makes you even more interesting to the deputies. Stuffing you in the cage of the car is SOP for LASO when there is any quesiton about the contactee. 5-10 deputies on scene is normal too. They're bored and you are interesting. Trying multiple ways of getting you to cop out to your "real" identity, totaly normal. Being asshats about it? Hey it's LASO. What do you expect? (old joke: LASO will mother f^@& you and beat you bloody. LAPD will call you sir and just kill you.) Beef 'em if you want. Good luck getting anywhere with it.

Searching your car? 4th violation? Gant? Gant says search incident to arrest sharply limited now. The question is was the search incident to the arrest or was it an "inventory" search related to storing your car under 22651(h). (Inventory searches in the LA/OC area are usually done right there on the scene by the storing cop before the tow truck gets there. You just can't trust them tow truck drivers(private companies, not gov)to not rip off your stuff. Its also real embarrasing when your sergeant gets a call from another agency tellinghim that the caryou stored had 2 Mexicans in the trunk whenyou towed it.True story. I made the call.)

Question: Could he / Should he store your car? Yes he could. 22651 says so. Should he? Is it on the street? Is it legally parked? Does LASO want to wait around while you make frantic and usually fruitless efforts to find someone who can come get you car for you? Does LASO want you to bitch at them many days later when you finally get out of jail and your car has been towed for being parked in the same place over 72hrs? Does LASO want you bitching at them that your car was burglarized/damaged/stolen/ticketed because they forced you to leave it on the street? Obviously LASO's answers are clear in their decision to store your car. They will cite their community care taker function if you make an issue of it and they will most likely be supported by most lower court judges.

Question: Was the search legal? My thinking is that despite Gant the issue is not settled. Gant seems to revolve around the theory that a "search incident to arrest" must have closer ties in time and spacebetween the car and the crook. Remove the crook from the car andreduce your ability to warrantlessly search. (cuff him and keep him in the car=broader scope of warrantless search? Hmm. Interesting idea.) Does an "administrative" search count as a valid exception to the warrant requirement? I think yes, but I suspectthat this is an issue that the Supremesare going to hash out eventually. It's accepted that certain parts of gov can perform "administrative" inspections w/o warrants (fire marshal, food inspector, code enforcement) and that if the inspections uncover evidence of a crime that evidence can be used as probable cause to support a warrant. Since cars are so readily mobile rendering evidence they may contain, in essence, evanesent (sp?)the courts have made exception in the warrant requirement. Does Gant do away with this all together? I don't knowandI doubt even the Supremesreally know yet.

Either way there was no evidence of a crime to bring against you so no harm no foul. [Outraged Citizen] How can you say no harm no foul? He spent 9 hours of his life in durance vile having his rights trampled and being exposed to swine flu and drug resistant strep in jail. [/Outraged Citizen] Good luck bringing a 42usc1983 suit against LASO on this. They have very deep pockets and a big legal staff.

As for not being "arrested", 849(b)PC covers that.

On the happy side you got your freedom back, your gun back, your truck back, hell, you may even get your storage fees back. All you need now is your dog back and you've got a country music win win situation if I ever heard of one. On the happy side that some folks here will never admit to, there are now a bunch of LASO deputies that now know with great certainty that possession of an unloaded rifle in a car is not a crime. Win win there too.

When you go to court on the ticket you can even argue that you deserve credit for time served when the judge finds you guilty and passes sentence on you. I wonder how many fine dollars 9 hours of custodyare worth.:lol:
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

fasttimes wrote:
but still motivated not by my lack of ID, but the rifle


...bad intentions (if they existed) do not make good law bad...

Interestingly, does this not also apply to a person walking about the street?


Yes.



Welcome to OCDO!
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Under Ca Vehicle code 40302a: If you are detained for a vehicle code section, and don't have ID you can be detained for identification reasons (ie transported for finger printing generally and released) and your vehicle stored. The officers get to go into your trunk for an "inventory" search.

Under Federal 4th A. jurisprudence you can be arrested for any public offence (even infractions).

Your only complaint is with the officers attitude and language not there actions.

If you fight the ticket and win you may sue for your tow fees in small claims possibly.
This was accurate until Arizona v Gant.

The SCOTUS clearly states that any search without a warrant is presumed unreasonable unless it fits certain strict criteria. A "vehicle inventory" is not one of the criteria that permits a warrantless search. SCOTUS essentially ruled that 28 years of lower court precident on vehicle searches were 4A violations. That's pretty significant.

In the Gant case he was stopped fro driving on a suspended license. The court said that since there was reason to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime, the police had no right to search incident to arrest. So the drugs and gun they found in his car are not admissable.

Now, this won't really help you since there's no ill-gotten evidence to throw out... but if you were so inclined you do have standing to bring a federal 4A case. I'm not suggesting you do that (I really don't think it's worth throwing that much money at), just pointing out the possibility.

[Attached the case for your reading pleasure.]
 

nukechaser

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Elk Grove, California, USA
imported post

Grumpy! At the risk of sounding like a broken record (that's 'scratched CD' to you younger folks) I want to say again that I appreciate your take on things.

You once again bring unique insight to the discussion.

Thanks!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

fasttimes wrote:
Over the weekend, I was pulled over for speeding somewhere in the County of Los Angeles;

How fast did they say you weregoing and what was the speed limit?



fasttimes wrote:
They asked if I was going to be a problem, and asked for my license. I didn't have my license on me because I had lost it easier that day shooting out in the desert (don't ask me how, I still can't figure it out) and I said so. They asked me a couple more times for an ID of some type, and each time I said I lost it and gave them my name and address (and later even gave my SSN when asked). They clearly thought I was lying, and/or wanted an excuse to search me and the car.

How did you lose your license? Did you lose your whole wallet?



fasttimes wrote:
The lesson i learned: Don't throw away your expired IDs/DLs. Keep one in every vehicle you use. This should prove your ID if you happen to loose your license or forget your wallet while on the road, or until a replacement arrives. I have already done this for the future.

The lesson, I think, is not that.

The Lesson 1 is not to lose your license in the first place. Then, if you cannot comply with this Lesson 1, andhave lost your license,Lesson 2 is not to speed while you are driving without a license. Then Lesson 3is to absolutely remember Lesson 2 (don't speed without your license) if you happen to have gun(s) in the car.

Lesson 4 would be to keep a license copy in your car. But it would probably be better to have a copy of your current license. (So, make a copy of the original (or replacement) before you lose the darn thing.

Have you applied for a replacement license yet?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Under Ca Vehicle code 40302a: If you are detained for a vehicle code section, and don't have ID you can be detained for identification reasons (ie transported for finger printing generally and released) and your vehicle stored. The officers get to go into your trunk for an "inventory" search.

Under Federal 4th A. jurisprudence you can be arrested for any public offence (even infractions).

Your only complaint is with the officers attitude and language not there actions.

If you fight the ticket and win you may sue for your tow fees in small claims possibly.
Yeah, its a little complicated - if the police arrest you and seize your vehicle, existing prececedent allows them to "inventory" the vehicle too provided they follow standardized procedures - there is a case bwing reviewed now by the U S. Ct., Smith I think, re vehcile seizures on loose community caretaking grounds, where inventory searches are subsequently performed. Will be interesting to see how this turns out agfter the Gant case.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

wayneco wrote:
I'm confused. How does this last post remain true w/r/t the "inventory search" in light of Arizona vs Gant?
B/c gant was not an inventory search - they just decided to search the car - right? So then when the police seize your car an impound it, then tow it back, it can still be inventoried.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

wayneco wrote:
I'm confused. How does this last post remain true w/r/t the "inventory search" in light of Arizona vs Gant?
The process of overturning precedent is not instant. Just like we're experiencing post-Nordyke, we will likely see several cases where this 28 years of precedent is slowly overturned. The bad news is that the cops are gonna keep doing it until it's overturned. This is especially bad since lots of bad guys are gonna get away due to evidence being thrown out in a lot of cases.

The cops need to learn: if you don't have RS, get a warrant. Even for "inventory" searches.
 

wayneco

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Washoe County, Nevada, USA
imported post

so the arrest which led to the impound and subsequent inventory search could have possibly been just a pretext to make a search they otherwise could not legally make.

So any infraction accusation could set forth these events in motion. If that's true then really nobody is ever safe from search in their car if this loophole is a valid reason to infringe on your 4th Amendment right.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

wayneco wrote:
so the arrest which led to the impound and subsequent inventory search could have possibly been just a pretext to make a search they otherwise could not legally make.

So any infraction accusation could set forth these events in motion. If that's true then really nobody is ever safe from search in their car if this loophole is a valid reason to infringe on your 4th Amendment right.
That's where the standardized procedures requirement comes in - further opportunity to litigate the search.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

wayneco wrote:
I'm confused. How does this last post remain true w/r/t the "inventory search" in light of Arizona vs Gant?

Because the law is never as clear cut as people want to believe it is. Gant can say no vehicle searches incident to arrest but the argument can still be brought forward that an inventory search is not incident to arrest but a strictly administrative procedure related to the taking of the car into storage. You have to think like a lawyer, not a real person. You've got to be able to split them hairs.

Imagine this. The police execute a search warrant on a car. The warrant is very narrowly crafted to cover only documents. A gazillion dollar Faberge egg is found during the search. For whatever reason there is no way to secure thecar after the search is concluded. Should the police leave theegg unsecured or should they takeit into safe keeping? The egg was not subject to seizure under the warrant but is it within the community care taker role of the police to take steps to protect it from damage or theft? Even is there is no duty to protect against loss, do you think that the police would willingly open themselves to exposure for the value of the egg if they can prevent such exposure byadministrativly securing it? The egg's owner might scream bloody murder that the egg was taken, but how much louder would the screaming get if the egg was left behind andsome tow truck driverstole it?

Now take this one step further. The property room officer is an expert in Faberge eggs and recognizes the found egg as being the fabulous "Czar Nicholas Oh So Snooty" egg stolen from the local nick nack shop. Despite the fact that the egg was recovered outside of the scope of the warrantis the governmentobligated to turn a blind eye to the fact that it is known stolen property and return it to its illegitimate possessor or is their duty to the rightful owner of the hot egg? Isthe owner of the car liable for possession of the stolen egg? Should it be excluded from evidence because it was discovered outside the limits of the warrant?

There are plenty of decisions thatmight be used to argue that the egg is excludable but since the specifics of this case are different than those in those other cases theCourts would likely have to decide based on the circumstances of the new egg case while using those other decisions as a guide and not neccesarily a strict prescpription for action. Damn those activist judges. (Judges are usually lawyers, by the way, not real people.)

Precedent is important but is not carved in stone.The constitution is a living document that is subject to constant reinterpretation despite what some strict constitutionalists think. Don't believe it? Take a gander at Plessy v Fergusson and Brown v board of Education. Would you really like to live in a Plessy v Fergusson world? Do you want your Faberge egg back? Don't you want that damnable egg thief brought to justice.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
The process of overturning precedent is not instant. Just like we're experiencing post-Nordyke, we will likely see several cases where this 28 years of precedent is slowly overturned. The bad news is that the cops are gonna keep doing it until it's overturned. This is especially bad since lots of bad guys are gonna get away due to evidence being thrown out in a lot of cases.

The cops need to learn: if you don't have RS, get a warrant. Even for "inventory" searches.
Don't worry, the cops will learn. Lots of old salts practically peed themselves when Miranda bacame law of the land. They were certain that every crook in the world would be smart enough to shut up. Didn't quite work out that way, did it?
 

flyboy4.0

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1
Location
San Bernardino, California, USA
imported post

VC 40302(a) allows a peace officer to arrest a person who has committed a misdemeanor or infraction of the vehicle code into custody to verify their identity if they have no evidence of ID. This applies to driving offenses as well as bicycle or pedestrian offenses. Sometimes, bad guys will lie about who they are because they are wantedand this is a good tool. Also, there is case law that says if the driver is stopped for a lawful reason (Any punitive vehicle code section) and the driver has no ID or claims they have no ID, that is probable cause to search the vehicle for ID any place there may reasonably be ID. I do not remember the case law off the top of my head.

There used to be a law in California that in effect said people must carry ID in public. It mostly applied to merely being in public. The California Supreme Court struck it down. Driving a car is regulated by the vehicle code. VC 12951(a) says you have to have a DL in possession while driving. VC 12951(b) is a misdemeanor section that makes it arrestable to refuse to give your DL to a peace officer when lawfully stopped.

If you think you got caught in a speed trap, VC 40801-40808 prohibit a speed trap,defines a speed trap, and basically says all evidence derived from a speed trap is inadmissable. If you think you got caught in a speed trap, use that as a starting off point and do research on the internet.

Arizona vs Gant appplies only to searches incident to arrest from a vehicle.For example, an officer conducts a traffic stop for some violation. The officer runs the driver's info and finds an active warrant. The officer arrests the driver for the warrant. Prior to this decision, officers could then search the passenger compartment or any part of the car the driver could reasonably reach (wing span rule) for contraband. That rule no longer applies with this new case law.

However, the following vehicle searches are still permissable:

1) Probable Cause- The officer has probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, and the vehicle is "readily mobile." Pennsylvaniav Labron, US v Ross.

2)Consent Searches "Always say no :)." Ohio v Robinette

3)Probation and Parole Searches, when aware of parole status and probationer's search terms. People v Reyes, Samson v California

4)Vehicle Frisk for Weapons-During a lawful contact, with reasonable suspicion occupants are armes. Michigan v Long

5)Inventory Searches-When a vehicle is legally impounded to determine content and conditions. This must be done consisten with agency policy. Florida v Wells (This is the type of search done in this case. As long as the dep followed department policy, it is a good search. He had cause to tow it for VC 22651(h)-Driver Arrested.)

Good luck fighting your ticket.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

wayneco wrote:
so the arrest which led to the impound and subsequent inventory search could have possibly been just a pretext to make a search they otherwise could not legally make.

So any infraction accusation could set forth these events in motion. If that's true then really nobody is ever safe from search in their car if this loophole is a valid reason to infringe on your 4th Amendment right.
That's a point the Arizona v Gant opinion specifically addresses.

As much as LE may candy coat it as something else, an "impound inventory" is in fact a search incident to arrest.
 
Top