Florida sued for ticketing motorists who warn others of speed traps

[ChrisV]

Florida is facing a class-action lawsuit from drivers who have been ticketed for attempting to warn other motorists of hidden speed traps. According to WTSP 10 News, Eric Campbell was recently cited for just that, despite the fact that there is no law against using one's headlights to communicate with other drivers. The officer who ticketed Campbell used Florida State Statute 316.2397, even though the courts ruled that the police were wrongfully applying the law to crack down on vehicle-to-vehicle communication in 2005. Now Campbell wants his $100 ticket refunded and $15,000 in damages.

Since 2005, over 10,429 drivers have been cited for flashing their high beams, and if Campbell wins his case, Florida could be facing over $1 million in ticket refunds. But that's nothing compared to the $156.4 million the state could have to pay out if each driver is awarded $15,000 each. Hit the jump to take a look at news report on the lawsuit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/29/florida-sued-for-ticketing-motorists-that-warn-others-of-speed-t/?ref=mostpopular

I hope they win. If the idea is to slow people down, the warning people is a good thing. If the idea is to make money, then warning people is a bad thing. Well, any time that speed enforcement can be proven to be a money grab, it's a good thing indeed. If Florida wants to play this game then they deserve to be faced with harsh penalties. You can't expect some entity to learn better (be that a corporation, a private individual, or government) without severe repercussions. In other words - the guy doesn't deserve $15K for his troubles, but Florida deserves to pay $15K for their BS.

[Raza]

I'm in their corner 100%.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Score 1 for the good guys. I do hope.

[VTEC_Inside]

That happened in Toronto to some journalist. No lawsuit, but the guy challenged the ticket and it was tossed.

[bing_oh]

(7)  Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

While the law may not have originally been written with this situation in mind, the section fits.

And, we all know that flashing lights to indicate a speed enforcement doesn't actually slow people down beyond the time it takes to get past the enforcement area. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[ChrisV]

(7)  Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

While the law may not have originally been written with this situation in mind, the section fits.

And, we all know that flashing lights to indicate a speed enforcement doesn't actually slow people down beyond the time it takes to get past the enforcement area. Let's not pretend otherwise.

And we all know that a police car visible only slows peopel down in the area the car is at. And we also know that stopping someone for speeding doesn't slow ANYONE else down around except for the time that the cop is visible. So a motorist flashing the lights (which they also do for danger, like deer on the roadway, an accident or something around a blind corner or over a rise) is no WORSE. The ONLY reason youd want them to NOT to do it is in order to gain ticket ervenue. PERIOD.

And by the way, "flashing lights" in that section are for lights that are designed to be continuously flashing. It is NOT referencing headlights that are momentarily illuminated for the purpose of signalling. So no, it does not fit. The courts ruled that the police were wrongfully applying the law to crack down on vehicle-to-vehicle communication in 2005, which says to me that the courts believed the law means whhat *I* just pointed out it means, not what YOU think it means.

[ChrisV]

I'd suspect we can communicate all we want with eachother to warn of road hazards, and law enforcement might even commend you for doing so in safety situations. It suddenly becomes illegal in their eyes when they're busy generating revenue...

[bing_oh]

I'd suspect we can communicate all we want with eachother to warn of road hazards, and law enforcement might even commend you for doing so in safety situations. It suddenly becomes illegal in their eyes when they're busy generating revenue...

An officer enforcing the law is now a "road hazard?" Nice try, but I think not.

[bing_oh]

And we all know that a police car visible only slows peopel down in the area the car is at. And we also know that stopping someone for speeding doesn't slow ANYONE else down around except for the time that the cop is visible. So a motorist flashing the lights (which they also do for danger, like deer on the roadway, an accident or something around a blind corner or over a rise) is no WORSE. The ONLY reason youd want them to NOT to do it is in order to gain ticket ervenue. PERIOD.

And by the way, "flashing lights" in that section are for lights that are designed to be continuously flashing. It is NOT referencing headlights that are momentarily illuminated for the purpose of signalling. So no, it does not fit. The courts ruled that the police were wrongfully applying the law to crack down on vehicle-to-vehicle communication in 2005, which says to me that the courts believed the law means whhat *I* just pointed out it means, not what YOU think it means.

Here. I'll post the law in its entirety. Please quote directly from the law where it says a flashing light in violation must be continuously flashing.

316.2397  Certain lights prohibited; exceptions.
(1)  No person shall drive or move or cause to be moved any vehicle or equipment upon any highway within this state with any lamp or device thereon showing or displaying a red or blue light visible from directly in front thereof except for certain vehicles hereinafter provided.

(2)  It is expressly prohibited for any vehicle or equipment, except police vehicles, to show or display blue lights. However, vehicles owned, operated, or leased by the Department of Corrections or any county correctional agency may show or display blue lights when responding to emergencies.

(3)  Vehicles of the fire department and fire patrol, including vehicles of volunteer firefighters as permitted under s. 316.2398, vehicles of medical staff physicians or technicians of medical facilities licensed by the state as authorized under s. 316.2398, ambulances as authorized under this chapter, and buses and taxicabs as authorized under s. 316.2399 are permitted to show or display red lights. Vehicles of the fire department, fire patrol, police vehicles, and such ambulances and emergency vehicles of municipal and county departments, public service corporations operated by private corporations, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Department of Corrections as are designated or authorized by their respective department or the chief of police of an incorporated city or any sheriff of any county are hereby authorized to operate emergency lights and sirens in an emergency. Wreckers, mosquito control fog and spray vehicles, and emergency vehicles of governmental departments or public service corporations may show or display amber lights when in actual operation or when a hazard exists provided they are not used going to and from the scene of operation or hazard without specific authorization of a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. Wreckers must use amber rotating or flashing lights while performing recoveries and loading on the roadside day or night, and may use such lights while towing a vehicle on wheel lifts, slings, or under reach if the operator of the wrecker deems such lights necessary. A flatbed, car carrier, or rollback may not use amber rotating or flashing lights when hauling a vehicle on the bed unless it creates a hazard to other motorists because of protruding objects. Further, escort vehicles may show or display amber lights when in the actual process of escorting overdimensioned equipment, material, or buildings as authorized by law. Vehicles owned or leased by private security agencies may show or display green and amber lights, with either color being no greater than 50 percent of the lights displayed, while the security personnel are engaged in security duties on private or public property.

(4)  Road or street maintenance equipment, road or street maintenance vehicles, road service vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, petroleum tankers, and mail carrier vehicles may show or display amber lights when in operation or a hazard exists.

(5)  Road maintenance and construction equipment and vehicles may display flashing white lights or flashing white strobe lights when in operation and where a hazard exists. Additionally, school buses and vehicles that are used to transport farm workers may display flashing white strobe lights.

(6)  All lighting equipment heretofore referred to shall meet all requirements as set forth in s. 316.241.

(7)  Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

(8)  Subsections (1) and (7) do not apply to police, fire, or authorized emergency vehicles while in the performance of their necessary duties.

(9)  Flashing red lights may be used by emergency response vehicles of the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health when responding to an emergency in the line of duty.

(10)  A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

And, a motorist who has been stopped for a traffic violation will usually be a little more cautious for a time after the stop. The purpose of traffic enforcement is to try to change habits to something a little safer. I've said this before, but I'll say it again since it apparently doesn't sink in very well with some people...officers gain no personal benefit by citing motorist (no toasters for "meeting quota," no raises), just as departments gain no benefit (most fine money goes to the courts and the state...the little that goes to the departments doesn't cover the gas for the cruiser or the salary of the officer for as long as he takes to make the stop). In other words, the people you're accusing of being involved in a "money grab" doen't get any money. Your theory doesn't hold water...not that I'd expect you to admit this.

[SVT_Power]

And we all know that a police car visible only slows peopel down in the area the car is at. And we also know that stopping someone for speeding doesn't slow ANYONE else down around except for the time that the cop is visible.

That's only when the cop car is visible too. In the city I go to school, they like to tuck the cruisers away somewhere and have officers step out onto the road and pull people over off the street onto a small street. So in other words, there's no visible signs of enforcement before, during, or after being pulled over. I know other cities use the same system where the officer steps out onto the road to pull people over, but I've never seen any other city's PD tuck the cruiser out of view and also get the pulled over car out of view as well.

On a semi-related note, I personally think hiding and radar/laser-ing motorists is just outright revenue generation. It doesn't slow ANYBODY down except for the guy getting pulled over.

[NomisR]

Here. I'll post the law in its entirety. Please quote directly from the law where it says a flashing light in violation must be continuously flashing.

And, a motorist who has been stopped for a traffic violation will usually be a little more cautious for a time after the stop. The purpose of traffic enforcement is to try to change habits to something a little safer. I've said this before, but I'll say it again since it apparently doesn't sink in very well with some people...officers gain no personal benefit by citing motorist (no toasters for "meeting quota," no raises), just as departments gain no benefit (most fine money goes to the courts and the state...the little that goes to the departments doesn't cover the gas for the cruiser or the salary of the officer for as long as he takes to make the stop). In other words, the people you're accusing of being involved in a "money grab" doen't get any money. Your theory doesn't hold water...not that I'd expect you to admit this.

If quotas don't exist.. then why

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/05/local/la-me-ticket-quota-20110805

And yesterday, while getting on the freeway, there was a motorcycle officer, sitting at the edge of a freeway on ramp (which was higher than the freeway) pointing a radar gun type thing at the freeway below him.  And because he's sitting on the curved portion of the on ramp, people passing him on the on ramp has to slow down and go into another lane to get around him.  And this is all in the name of what.. safety?  In a freeway section that's pretty light on traffic by LA standards..

[Submariner]

15k in damages? 

[VTEC_Inside]

Here is the Toronto story. It was back in 2008 already, man time flies..

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080130/flashing_headlights_ticket_080130/20080130?hub=TorontoHome

[hotrodalex]

An officer enforcing the law is now a "road hazard?" Nice try, but I think not.

Obviously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iROitbRYQAw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wrJ8p7OLq4&feature=related

[TurboDan]

In New Jersey, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that drivers shall not be ticketed for flashing lights to warn of police activity ahead/behind/etc. Do people still get pulled over for it? Sure, I guess. But anything resulting from the stop can get tossed. I suspect most drivers just pay the ticket, though, since it's a nonmoving violation.

[bing_oh]

I noticed you failed to address the meat of my argument or give me a specific reference from the law that supported your "continuously flashing light" argument.

If quotas don't exist.. then why

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/05/local/la-me-ticket-quota-20110805

Your reference seems to contradict your assumptions that quotas are a given. If officers are filing lawsuits against quotas, then why would you assume that they're an accepted practice by those same officers?

And yesterday, while getting on the freeway, there was a motorcycle officer, sitting at the edge of a freeway on ramp (which was higher than the freeway) pointing a radar gun type thing at the freeway below him.  And because he's sitting on the curved portion of the on ramp, people passing him on the on ramp has to slow down and go into another lane to get around him.  And this is all in the name of what.. safety?  In a freeway section that's pretty light on traffic by LA standards..

Or, maybe the idea behind not making officers on traffic enforcement blatently obvious is to try to get motorists to think "they could be enforcing anywhere" instead of "there's the cops in one of their traffic enforcement spots." As I said, trying to change habits. Let me give you an example. There's a suburb of Dayton, Ohio that is notorious for extremely strict traffic enforcement. They won't hesitate to write for under 5 mph over the limit (extreme even by my standards...which are actually pretty lenient when it comes to speed enforcement, for the record). Guess what? Nobody speeds in that city. Their strict enforcement changed general driving habits.

[NomisR]

I noticed you failed to address the meat of my argument or give me a specific reference from the law that supported your "continuously flashing light" argument.

By your statute, a driver driving like they're having a spasm by tapping on their brakes every so often because they drive with a foot on their brakes would be in violation of the traffic code.   Same as those "blinking" brake light mods people do.

Your reference seems to contradict your assumptions that quotas are a given. If officers are filing lawsuits against quotas, then why would you assume that they're an accepted practice by those same officers?

The fact is, quotas are against the law in California.  Yet a quota is imposed by the department.  Whether or not the officers are for or against the said quota is irrelevant it is evident that it is policy of that department.  And those who do not follow the policy are punished.  And obviously, not everyone is punished so it means there are those that do agree with the said quota or at least follow it due to the fear of punishment for not doing so. 

Or, maybe the idea behind not making officers on traffic enforcement blatently obvious is to try to get motorists to think "they could be enforcing anywhere" instead of "there's the cops in one of their traffic enforcement spots." As I said, trying to change habits. Let me give you an example. There's a suburb of Dayton, Ohio that is notorious for extremely strict traffic enforcement. They won't hesitate to write for under 5 mph over the limit (extreme even by my standards...which are actually pretty lenient when it comes to speed enforcement, for the record). Guess what? Nobody speeds in that city. Their strict enforcement changed general driving habits.

The problem is, traffic enforcement should be done with safety of the motorists in mind.  However, when enforcement is done where it creates a dangerous situation for other motorists, what sense does it make for them to do so? 

For an officer to clock a driver going 80 mph in a 65 mph zone while sitting at the side of the road, for the same officer to chase the driver going 80 down, and pull him over, how much faster must the officer be going to accomplish this task.  Is this actually worth the risk that it would impose on other motorist IF 80mph is really dangerous? 

What it really comes down to is not really against the officers but more the administrators and the politicians making up stupid laws and rules.  You guys are just doing your job.  But like with HoA, it really just need one person that goes on a power trip to ruin it for the rest of you.

[Soup DeVille]

(7)  Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

While the law may not have originally been written with this situation in mind, the section fits.

And, we all know that flashing lights to indicate a speed enforcement doesn't actually slow people down beyond the time it takes to get past the enforcement area. Let's not pretend otherwise.

It also said that "courts" (which I assume to mean more than one case) have ruled that this is a wrongful application of the law, but those rulings were ignored.

[bing_oh]

By your statute, a driver driving like they're having a spasm by tapping on their brakes every so often because they drive with a foot on their brakes would be in violation of the traffic code.   Same as those "blinking" brake light mods people do.

Wouldn't a person constantly tapping their brakes be presenting a certain risk to those following them by their actions? As for the blinking light mods on vehicles, I can tell you that they're considered illegal in Ohio and would appear to be illegal in California under the above quoted section of law.

The fact is, quotas are against the law in California.  Yet a quota is imposed by the department.  Whether or not the officers are for or against the said quota is irrelevant it is evident that it is policy of that department.  And those who do not follow the policy are punished.  And obviously, not everyone is punished so it means there are those that do agree with the said quota or at least follow it due to the fear of punishment for not doing so.

First, let me make it clear that I've never said that no department has quotas. They do exist though, in my experience, they're much rarer than people seem to believe. As for their purpose, in my experience, they're not used for financial gain but as a misguided attempt by administrators to dictate some numerically measurable standard of "officer productivity." I don't know many patrol officers who agree with quotas of any kind...most officers believe that officer discretion is vital in law enforcement and quotas undermine that practice. Considering it's the road officers who write the tickets, you'd be amazed how creative we can be in screwing with things like this.

The problem is, traffic enforcement should be done with safety of the motorists in mind.  However, when enforcement is done where it creates a dangerous situation for other motorists, what sense does it make for them to do so? 

For an officer to clock a driver going 80 mph in a 65 mph zone while sitting at the side of the road, for the same officer to chase the driver going 80 down, and pull him over, how much faster must the officer be going to accomplish this task.  Is this actually worth the risk that it would impose on other motorist IF 80mph is really dangerous? 

What it really comes down to is not really against the officers but more the administrators and the politicians making up stupid laws and rules.  You guys are just doing your job.  But like with HoA, it really just need one person that goes on a power trip to ruin it for the rest of you.

If the offender driving 80 isn't a danger, than the (trained, experienced) officer catching up to him shouldn't be either. If he is a danger, then isn't it the primary responsibility of LE to try to mitigate that danger to the public, even if certain calculated risks must be taken? We in LE have to take calculated risks in the enforcement of the job every day to mitigate the larger dangers.

[GoCougs]

An officer enforcing the law is now a "road hazard?" Nice try, but I think not.

One of the most dangerous road hazards extant is LE pulling over drivers onto the side of the road . It is extraordinarily dangerous, especially on freeways, and should be used ONLY in instances of grave circumstances (which is NOT for the vast majority of traffic infractions).

[bing_oh]

One of the most dangerous road hazards extant is LE pulling over drivers onto the side of the road . It is extraordinarily dangerous, especially on freeways, and should be used ONLY in instances of grave circumstances (which is NOT for the vast majority of traffic infractions).

Seriously? A cruiser, with a half a billion little flashing/blinking/rotating light on it, pulled over on the side of the road is "one of the most dangerous road hazards" and should be used only in "grave circumstances?" Where do you come up with this stuff, Cougs? If motorists follow the law as it's written in most states...ie, the "move over" laws...then traffic stops are certainly not one of the most dangerous road hazards out there. Dumbass motorists who aren't paying attention and don't have the basic intelligence to move over for stopped emergency vehicles are the hazard.

[NomisR]

Wouldn't a person constantly tapping their brakes be presenting a certain risk to those following them by their actions? As for the blinking light mods on vehicles, I can tell you that they're considered illegal in Ohio and would appear to be illegal in California under the above quoted section of law.

Not always, like I said, a lot of times, it's those who drives like they're having a spasm and are randomly tapping the brakes without slowing down.  It confuses those who can't see around them.  Those are typically the ones that drive with one foot on the brake and they depress the brakes that triggers the tail lights without knowing it. 

I guess they would themselves be considered a hazard since they cause people to slow down for no reason in a fear of a hazard.

First, let me make it clear that I've never said that no department has quotas. They do exist though, in my experience, they're much rarer than people seem to believe. As for their purpose, in my experience, they're not used for financial gain but as a misguided attempt by administrators to dictate some numerically measurable standard of "officer productivity." I don't know many patrol officers who agree with quotas of any kind...most officers believe that officer discretion is vital in law enforcement and quotas undermine that practice. Considering it's the road officers who write the tickets, you'd be amazed how creative we can be in screwing with things like this.

And apparently, it is illegal in California, yet the department still continued with it.  Regardless of the purpose, it is an illegal activity that is conducted by a department that is suppose to enforce the law.  I've said it's not the officer's fault, but it doesn't make it right.

If the offender driving 80 isn't a danger, than the (trained, experienced) officer catching up to him shouldn't be either. If he is a danger, then isn't it the primary responsibility of LE to try to mitigate that danger to the public, even if certain calculated risks must be taken? We in LE have to take calculated risks in the enforcement of the job every day to mitigate the larger dangers.

If the driver going 80 is not a danger, why chase him down?  If he is a danger, then wouldn't chasing him down at a significantly faster speed create a greater danger to other motorists? 

If it's the former, then what's the entire point of the whole ticket?  If it's the latter then it still defeats it whole action's purpose.

What about things like pulling people over for tinted windows?  Other than a violation of a stupid law, HELLO THIS IS CALIFORNIA!!, what purpose in safety does this serve? 

Sure, it's against the law, but the officer has the right to not enforce it. 
[/quote]

[NomisR]

Seriously? A cruiser, with a half a billion little flashing/blinking/rotating light on it, pulled over on the side of the road is "one of the most dangerous road hazards" and should be used only in "grave circumstances?" Where do you come up with this stuff, Cougs? If motorists follow the law as it's written in most states...ie, the "move over" laws...then traffic stops are certainly not one of the most dangerous road hazards out there. Dumbass motorists who aren't paying attention and don't have the basic intelligence to move over for stopped emergency vehicles are the hazard.

An officer pulling over a motorist typically causes the traffic to slow down, which creates congestion.  Congestions are more dangerous than free flowing traffic.

And then once the officer is at the side of the street, you risk stupid asshole rubberneckers where they themselves risk accidents and also further congestion. 

Speaking of which, do you guys ever pull people over for rubbernecking? 

[GoCougs]

Seriously? A cruiser, with a half a billion little flashing/blinking/rotating light on it, pulled over on the side of the road is "one of the most dangerous road hazards" and should be used only in "grave circumstances?" Where do you come up with this stuff, Cougs? If motorists follow the law as it's written in most states...ie, the "move over" laws...then traffic stops are certainly not one of the most dangerous road hazards out there. Dumbass motorists who aren't paying attention and don't have the basic intelligence to move over for stopped emergency vehicles are the hazard.

Yup.

"Move over" laws in context (at the whim and fancy of traffic enforcement laws) also add to the hazard.

Both (pulling people over, move over laws) are appropriate if and when the circumstances warrant (real traffic violations; obvious signs of impairment, reckless driving, etc.).

[hotrodalex]

If the driver going 80 is not a danger, why chase him down?  If he is a danger, then wouldn't chasing him down at a significantly faster speed create a greater danger to other motorists? 

If it's the former, then what's the entire point of the whole ticket?  If it's the latter then it still defeats it whole action's purpose.

The ticket I got in February was kinda funny like that. I was going 50 in a 35 and a cop passed me going the other way. He had to find a place to turn around and come back after me. Must have done at least 70 or 80 to catch up. Who's the bigger danger?

[NomisR]

The ticket I got in February was kinda funny like that. I was going 50 in a 35 and a cop passed me going the other way. He had to find a place to turn around and come back after me. Must have done at least 70 or 80 to catch up. Who's the bigger danger?

According to the officer, probably you are because he is a trained professional that can drive 80 in a 35mph zone safely while you're only capable of driving 35 mph safety.  He probably believes that you are likely to lose control of your car at any moment that you go 1 mph over the speed limit, hence him coming to your rescue.

You should've thanked him for saving you from a possible tragic accident by over 15 mph over the limit with your lack of training.

[hotrodalex]

According to the officer, probably you are because he is a trained professional that can drive 80 in a 35mph zone safely while you're only capable of driving 35 mph safety.  He probably believes that you are likely to lose control of your car at any moment that you go 1 mph over the speed limit, hence him coming to your rescue.

You should've thanked him for saving you from a possible tragic accident by over 15 mph over the limit with your lack of training.

Next time I get pulled over, I'll do exactly that. If he says he can safely drive faster than me, I'll challenge him to a duel at an indoor carting place.

[dazzleman]

In New Jersey, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that drivers shall not be ticketed for flashing lights to warn of police activity ahead/behind/etc. Do people still get pulled over for it? Sure, I guess. But anything resulting from the stop can get tossed. I suspect most drivers just pay the ticket, though, since it's a nonmoving violation.

I used to hear about drivers getting ticketed for flashing their lights in Connecticut, but I haven't heard about it for a long time.  I don't see many people do it up here anymore.  It seems to be a tradition that is dying out.

[dazzleman]

Next time I get pulled over, I'll do exactly that. If he says he can safely drive faster than me, I'll challenge him to a duel at an indoor carting place.

That will work really well.  Give it a try, and tell us the results....

[r0tor]

Its so interesting that there is no "quota".  Its so interesting that (in especially small municipalities) the police forces receive no pressure from the city to make their department less of a money pit to tax payers...

I'd like to ask Mr Bing if his department receives money grants for "safety blitzs".  I know a few of our local municipalities do this (I happened to get my BS ticket out of it) and the officer himself confessed that the department had a quota for the grant.  It seems like a perfect mix of departments getting more money, police officers getting more OT, and taxpayers getting screwed.