*1 July Dist., 9299. Div. Two. No. Second [Crim. 1965.] PEOPLE, Respondent, THE Plaintiff and v. EUGENE
DALE GREEN, Appellant. Defendant appointment the District Court Doyle, under A. Robert Appellant. Defendant and Appeal, for James, Attorney General, William B. Lynch, Thomas C. *2 George Roth, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Assistant Respondent. and Attorney General, for Plaintiff Eugene By jury verdict, defendants HERNDON, a J.— petty grand theft and of Wesley were convicted of and Green felony It found that following prior convictions.1 was theft felony Eu prior convictions and Wesley four had suffered appeals judg gene took from the had two. Both defendants Wesley’s dismissed on his own motion. Hence ments, but was Eugene. only appeal before us is that now assign- of facts will related to the sole Our statement error, namely, ment that the court below committed re- receiving property in versible error in evidence the stolen Eugene’s which the officershad taken from automobile Sufficiency an hour or so after he had been arrested. reasonably not, be, challenged. nor it evidence is could Eugene Wesley caught The record discloses that and were stealing in the act of various items of merchandise from a joint Sears, operation in Roebuck store Pasadena. Their potentially a crude but effective device which sometimes engage enabled one of them to the attention of a clerk while managed the other property to conceal selected items of on person his departure and thereafter make his unnoticed from the store. Following appellant Eugene’s approximately arrest at p.m., by 8:20 he Skutley, Security was asked a Super Mr. employed by
visor” store, driving whether he was an Appellant automobile. answered the affirmative and told Skutley driving Mr. that he was a white 1956 Lincoln. Al though car, he at once consented to a search of his purposely misdirected Mr. to the vehicle of a grand theft, 1Section 487 of Penal Code defines and section 1963, provides: "Every person who, having amended con been any felony elsewhere, having victed of either this or and State served any penal having imprisoned a term therein as a condition of or therefor institution probation offense, petty for such commits theft conviction, by punishable imprisonment after county jail such therefor exceeding year prison exceeding one or state ’’ years. five stranger. This vehicle is described as a Lincoln but the record or whether or does not reveal its color not was of 1956 vintage. Apparently appellant’s the fact it was not patently obvious, vehicle failed to ask Mr. Skutley any questions in connection therewith.2 Eugene approximately p.m., Wesley
Thereafter, at police. were After two turned over to Pasadena these suspects incarcerated, immediately had been re- Eugene’s sumed their search for It located automobile. was approximately p.m. parking on A :30 lot owned operated by & P Sears, Market. The two lots owned adjoining Roebuck and A P Market the & were and, practical standpoint, one lot was no more than a paved continuation of the other.
Clearly through observable the windows of pairs lying were seven of trousers back seat. These cuffs,” trousers still i.e., “ready had their “raw all as with trousers, legs made” the bottoms of the trouser of extra length ending jagged by pinking cuts made so shears they might be altered to fit the customer and either turned outward for addition, they cuffs inward for cuffless trousers. price tags identifying still carried the and the tags Department Store, of Hinshaw’s neighboring place *3 obvious, business. It course, appearance of from the of they these items of because, purchased merchandise that had not been ordinary sale, tailoring course of the of the legs completed trouser tags is and the are removed. lying Also on the seat of this vehicle were seven shirts with identifying similar tags, and two “disc sanders” still their Sears, Roebuck approximately length cartons feet and 8x8 inches their other dimensions.3 Also there was course, any 2Of since did not raise issue the trial court regarding propriety the or manner which his ear or its contents were identified, single question designed develop and asked not a such to issue, quite naturally very regard. Appel- the record limited in this only objection lant’s one and to the introduction of the evidence now challenged they through was made on “the basis that were secured an illegal seizure, they instigated through search and were a lawful taking place prior arrest or arrest some time to this. The defendants present, transported by police department. were not had been the The officer, Skutley, by Mr. has stated that search was made Pasadena police officers, present time, was, that at he was that no warrant warrant, present Therefore, appellant quite search that time.’’ properly has not made the of ear or its an contents identification appeal. issue on this appears Sears, 3It from that these sanders also had been stolen night, although appear Roebuck store that known it does not this fact was they appellant’s officers at the time looked into ear. complete mixer set with bowls and stand. electric This an appearance of fruit” had the “stolen because it was item Sears, in a box and it still carried on it the not contained tag. fishing price Finally, line, there were a Roebuck several cigarettes, and someneckties. cartons registration did not Mr. testified he see the slip impounded car, ear, on the but that before the officers papers glove he had seen various which were found in the compartment Eugene Wesley with names Green thereon.4 to the car unlocked, and, although The doors the record subject, is somewhat limited on the it is not denied clearly that all of these items were visible and identi fiable the outside.
The essence of contention is set forth in his brief as follows: “A search at a location distant from the place arrest, after the arrest completed, has been and when entry place prior of the has not been made to or at time of illegal arrest, after, but in absence of a search war- rant.” import is, say of this contention least, rather If challenge
unclear. right means to officersto his after arrest, his such contention clearly lacking would be metropolitan merit. In a area the Angeles, improbable size of it Los is most that a team of department store transport thieves will their loot from urban by suburban areas on foot or public means of trans- portation facilities. suspect acquisitive When one member of this team tells the Sears, investigator Roebuck that he has driven to the store in an surely automobile described him white, as a 1956 Lincoln,5 investigator both the and the authorities to whom relayed the information is sadly would be derelict in performance of their if duties did attempt rapidly possible. locate this ear as This would be an obvi ously necessary step prevent in order to disappearance its 4OriginalIy, Wesley Benjamin Holliday had stated that his name was Eugene knowing However, may had denied him. he inferred that Eugene’s the officers knew true name or had learned the names of both discovered, men the time the car was for as heretofore noted claim no *4 during trial, appeal, made was acted and none is made this that the officers improperly impounding in connection with their identification and of the itself. vehicle vintage 5It would seem that a white Lincoln of the of 1956 would be relatively fairly easy ordinary parking uncommon and to find on an lot. property previously it potential loss of
might contain. important in instances discovery particularly Speed eye knew from wit- present officers where the such as the into the two men taken certainty, a that nesses, and almost to very possibly one and that operating a team custody were appellant might When have involved. or more others by the ob- knowing fact established Wesley, a lied about arrest, and pair prior their then served conduct of the that he to an automobile deliberately the officers misdirected assumption very logical that obviously was a own, did not something ap- that probably contained most Ms automobile pellant very much to conceal. desired any competence a officer circumstances these plain duty regard to locate this naturally it as his would suggest possible. Common sense would quickly as vehicle as might be probability, that there possibility, if not the might or who drive vehicle other collaborators someone vicinity remove from it whatever stolen away from the might incriminating contain. The goods evidence it or other might reasonably apprehend could officersalso jail suggest telephone call from the to some use his allowed vehicle or its contents be re- friend or collaborator that the Code, 851.5.) (See moved. Pen. § challenging right Similarly, if many large, ear and officers to look into his observe tags plainly them, with the still on observable items sales “Apparently equally unmeritorious. the . . contention is . [adjoining area; was a common did officers lot] entering trespass by it. Nor did not commit the officers looking an unreasonable search the window of conduct ” Terry, (People the car. [Citation.] 381].) Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d [37 pointed Superior in Bielicki As the court out Court, Cal.Rptr. 552, 288], 57 Cal.2d P.2d pertinent provisions “search” as used the term of the imports and California United States Constitutions definite concept: implies prying places “A search into hidden object which is concealed and that the searched for has ” intentionally put way. out been hidden or [Citation.] People West, opinion Cal.App.2d 214, 219- Supreme 729], quoted Bielicki, Court supra, ordinarily further states: “While it has been said that sight, generally searching is a function of it is held that the
511
open
looking
to view is not a
at that which
‘search’.”
mere
People
Spicer,
Cal.App.2d
(See
678,
v.
also
683 [329
therein.)
917], and cases cited
it
Further, even if were
be conceded that it would
semantically more accurate to describe as a “search”
be
process
“looking into” a car which
itself had been
object
search, in
instant case
“searching
of a
the officers’
booty openly displayed
accumulated
appel
look” at the
in
car would not have constituted an
lant’s
“unreasonable
People
Terry,
(
supra,
p.
v.
152.)
search.”
61 Cal.2d at
Finally, may
be that
contention is meant to
suggest that
the further examination and removal of the
automatically
found in his car was
merchandise
unreasonable
under
not
his “immediate
since his
was
control” at the
or that its
time of his arrest
“search” was
in
“remote
time
(People
place
Burke,
from the arrest.”
575,
Cal.Rptr. 531,
In both Burke and Preston the identification and removal police custody into question automobiles there in were coincident with the arrest of their searches, i.e., occupants. owners and prying into hidden recesses of cars, cases, in those condemned occurred after both the cars and occupants had been removed from the scene of the arrest. Further, in both general instances the searches were of a exploratory nature in Preston persons since the accused “vagrancy,” arrested for and as the result of their “unsat- explanations isfactory suspicious actions” [their] Burke. fact, Preston, page as noted 368, it necessary questionable assumption
make the “that there are articles ‘implements’ which can be the ‘fruits’ or vagrancy,” of the crime of possibility before even the legal of a present been Indeed, could have therein. Burke, despite the fact that the accused only therein were arrested reason “suspicious’ of their neighborhood actions” in where burglaries recent committed, nevertheless the court held, page 580: “The search made of interior of defend- place ant’s car at the time the arrest was a lawful (Italics search incidental to . . added.) arrest. .” People Terry, forth in supra, That the rule set 61 Cal.2d p. not affected the Burke decision is ex- pressly therein, page People so 580: “The stated case of Terry, supra, ante, pp. 137, 152-153, only decided days fewa distinguishable Preston, is before its facts. There the de- police sought when the to talk fendant fled to him after object having an appeared observed his automobile marijuana cigarette, and to be a there was danger, present if here, that the articles seen the automobile were custody taken into defendant would return and ’’ remove the evidence. previously indicated, a similar As situation existed having After instant ease. described the ear he had driven to *6 he and at least the store where one other member of a team caught very stealing had been act of merchandise, deceitfully investigator took the to a car that was present purposes may For his own. we assume that this conduct vitiated the consent to search pre- the car which he viously expressed. (Castaneda Superior had Court, Cal.Rptr. 1, 641].) 380 P.2d In turn, however, emphasize imperative it served increase and the prompt police need for action to pos- locate his car and take of session evidence or other items of property stolen contained therein. Certainly the mere absence of from the scene illegal should not render the made into observations the in- terior of the car or the removal clearly of what rather appeared property plainly to be stolen visible therein. Such a require rule physically transport would the officers to an searching arrested criminal with them while for his car. We possible purpose see no to be imposing any served such
potentially dangerous and requirement useless upon police operating in the field. case, Wesley the instant had Green assaulted the officers they attempted
when Appellant Eugene to arrest him. Green regarding had lied to the officers the location of his car. Surely provisions our constitutional require do not that the persons incarceration of such dealyed must be until all evi- dence at the scene of their brought light. crimes has People Robinson, As stated in page 62 Cal.2d 889 at Cal.Rptr. 762, 402 P.2d : 834] “In the us, police ease before conducted their search at place arrest, i.e., of in police front of station, at a virtually contemporaneous time Viewing to that of arrest. officers, realistically, taking conclude that in we matter steps away interior police to the of the a few defendant they reasonably as if had ordered station, acted as him to his car while conducted their search. front of stand clearly be the latter course would incidental to an Since actually procedure employed equiv- must as its arrest, ” legal the same effect. alent be accorded [Citation.] police at bench the Likewise, the case conducted place i.e., arrest, Wesley their at the of arrested prior appel area outside Sears store essentially contemporaneous the search was arrest, and lant’s partner Appellant and his were delivered time. to the security police officers at the Pasadena office Sears following period p.m., and, 9at whatever store time was required transfer, Mr. this imme diately appellant’s the search and located resumed car at p.m. approximately 9:30 can but conclude that the officers’ We observations into appellant’s their removal of the property plainly to seen the unlocked be interior thereof were not lawful, too remote time to be considered even if we were to permissible only by that such actions assume would reason being their incidental to his Even if arrest. obtained a instance, search warrant this we know of no require appellant’s presence rule that would while the war- being rant was executed. equally
It seems
certain that the mere fact that the
car was not under
“immediate control” at the
time
his
arrest does not render
illegal.
the officers’ conduct
*7
applied
That the strict rule
to a citizen’s
in People
residence
Cruz,
v.
Cal.Rptr. 841,
865-866
395 P.2d
[40
889], has
been
to
extended
vehicles made clear
the
People Harris,
recent decision in
v.
store vicinity. property from its the stolen nearby proposition that a vehicle support the Further found numer- of an arrest is may at the scene be searched Bannan, In v. cases, both federal and state. ous Crawford car, his taken to the arrested near 505, defendant was F.2d police and returned searched police station, after which the distinguished and held the search Preston The court his car. police whether or the arrest. to be incident to As page warrant, court 507: gotten stated should have existing authority, overrule, “Preston did not but cited Rabinowitz, 56, 70 339 U.S. S.Ct. case of United States v. legal- confirms the believe 430, 94 . . which we L.Ed. . 653] Supreme Rabinowitz, In ity of the search here discussed. procure had time to ‘Assuming the officers Court stated not, think to do We bound so? warrant, a search 385, the defendant States, F.2d United v. In Caldwell pro- and then 10:30 approximately bank at a.m. robbed Approximately a half hour getaway escape in a car. ceeded neighborhood which fit the car in the police found a later the three hours and some car. It was searched description of the court at his home. The the defendant police arrested later homes, and stated between vehicles the difference stressed particular car, to search this probable cause there was not in that the car was basis distinguished Preston for defendant opportunity an custody and there the evidence. and remove return caught 848, defendant was Russell, 321 F.2d Weller v. In building. He stated that he burglarizing a act of building. He to the he had hitchhiked car and that no owned person of his where station taken to Maryland plate miniature license keys with a car revealed to the area and returned hereto. The attached sticker keys Maryland plates and which the fit. bearing found a arrest, approximately an hour after car, A search against defendant. The incriminating evidence revealed and not unreasonable incident to the arrest held search was sanctioning cases For other federal under the circumstances. closely analogous to the situations of automobiles searches States, 227 ; 338 F.2d Hollins v. United case, see instant Lane, F.Supp. 516; Sisk Fortier, United States cited therein. F.Supp. the cases Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 423 People Demes,
515
robbery
defendant committed a
at about
986],
1:30 a.m. He
escaped in
described
a
what was
as blue-and-white 1954-1956
upon
escape.
car had been fired
Pontiac. The
An hour
robbery
officer at some distance from
later a
unoccupied
observed an
appeared
blue-and-white Pontiac with what
to be bullet crease over
rear
window. The car
an hour
appeared
later when the
searched
defendant
arrested. The court held that
he was
the Constitution does not
prohibit a reasonable search of an automobile when there is
cause to believe that
reasonable
contains contraband or
property, citing
States,
Scher v. United
had found falsely denied; *9 found one-half block from they had it they had ascertained the burglary; assumed of the scene they had wallet and found Donald’s belonged Harry; and to by including a kit of burglars, equipment, usable further plain sight. This did not constitute search. tools, in all [Citations.] point the that at this officers were not assert “We will boys right you say ‘Now wait here required to defendants: to magistrate get and a search warrant go find a while we tarp and find what it.’ permit to lift the is beneath us will police procedure befit a and quixotisms of Gilbert Sul- Such of real-life operetta libretto, not serious business livan ” investigation. are it be stressed that we not here con- course, Of should concerning right any question fronted with indiscriminately open to conduct a true “search” of the to adjacent to a store where a recent of vehicles found interiors merely they theft committed because believe that has been previously might in one them or that thief have arrived of might Ordinarily goods found be concealed therein. stolen general explorations probably quite improper would such illegal. and case, however, the
In the instant knew officers had arrived own statements he at the scene particularly car and one that of a rela in a described was tively variety. apparently changed had After he his rare expressed consent mind and had withdrawn his to the search vehicle, entirely proper of his described reasonable jail place safekeeping for the him in and there officers upon promptly When, discovery, his car. after its locate they plainly open plethora in could observe view of articles patent, whose did unrea stolen character not act sonably confirming appellant’s ownership of the car and impounding (Veh. Code, 22651, it. (h).) subd. The § in, appel thus from, articles observed and removed properly lant’s unlocked ear received evidence. judgment The is affirmed.
Fleming, J., concurred.
ROTH, P. J.—I dissent. evening eight
On the November items of men’s clothing, $200, valued excess of were taken from Hin- Department evening, Arcadia. same shaw’s Store Eugene appellant accomplice, Wesley and an Green Green (who appeal), security were arrested Sears does stealing guards of merchandise, observed them items who radio, pair including pliers, a transistor two electric arrest, several At the time of the sanders and ties. none of anything involved herein knew about officers the theft any reported. nor had such theft from Hinshaw’s Skutley, security officer, Robert the Sears testified that subsequent Wesley Green, the arrest he appellant if asked he had driven to Sears an automobile. replied Appellant a white, that he arrived in 1956 Lin- parked parking coln which was in the front lot. “I asked him objections through if if we he had looked the ear. He said he did not.” said that at approximately when p.m. 8:20 he arrested and took him to the east pointed to find Lincoln lot out appellant, it *10 proved examination, upon appellant deliberately that pointed a belong out ear which did not Appellant to him. was police then turned over to the Pasadena and lodged was in police approximately the Pasadena station at p.m. The appellant’s search for car was then appel- continued without lant and without search warrant. The Lincoln on the Sears Skutley originally gone. lot to which was misdirected was A by Skutley white Lincoln was found two and Pasadena parking separated A lot, in an & P market officers a drive- way parking lot, approximately from the Sears north :40, :30, right . . around Oh, “. there.” Somemerchandise through Skutley was observable the window. and the two opened and searched ear and officers found several clothing taken from items of men’s Hinshaw’s and several items taken Sears. only evidence disclosed the record as to The the visibil- price tags ity Skutley merchandise that of of on is who respect mixer did testified in of the set “It have one our of price anyone on it . . Whether or tickets .” else price the ear opened saw this ticket before the doors of were began, afterward, appear. and the search does theOf search, Skutley only three men who made the who one testified. Neither the two Pasadena officerswho assisted gave any subject the search evidence on the thereof. Reduced Skutley’s substantially form, testimony was narrative garments glove papers saw the and follows: I papers compartment first time I saw the automobile. The plan Eugene payment book for and of a time Green consisted Wesley The Lin- also a letter addressed to there was Green. parking found in the A & P lot. I was automobile was coln searching car, actually engaged is, the inside of the that moving standing car and outside the we were we were things there was to see. All the mer- to the side see what ear was not found the back seat. The locked. chandise was any registration I on the car. saw a time I did not search for think it payment I’m not sure on what institution. I book. Eugene The book was made out to the Bank of America. was glove compartment. I and I found it As remem- Green Wesley ber, there a letter in there addressed to I Green. Wesley’s envelope. The car think name was on the impounded police lockup behind intact. It was towed police department. In the rear seat of this Lincoln second there were two sanders and the mixer set and other merchan- many. ties, dise. There were I don’t know how There was wrapping mixer No did have Kenmore set. it. It one price it, though. complete our tickets on A set of mixer stand only price and It will be noted that the ticket bowls. referred to was one on the Kenmore mixer. majority accomplice The assume that and his part gang of a duty were police assert that it was the of the to locate and search automobile before gang other away members of the were alerted to make with Nothing in supports assumption. it. the record majority appear judicial to take notice of the fact that a 1956 relatively white Lincoln variety uncommon spite automobile fact the “. . . vehicle of stranger a fully originally . ...” to which but deceit- Skutley, directed was a 1956 white Lincoln in the Sears spite lot of the fact that there is no evidence to indicate that there or 100 cars on the Sears and A *11 & P However, irrespective lots. of the assumption, the record does not disclose that of the three men upon embarked search, through observed the windows pairs seven lying trousers on the back seat with “raw through cuffs” or observed price tags window of Hin- Department shaw’s making Store it “. . . they obvious . . . purchased had not been . . Nothing . .” sug- the record gests opening that before Lincoln, any of the three men observed on the back anywhere seat or else “. . . 7 shirts identifying tags or two ...” “disc sanders similar with ... an electric Roebuck cartons. mixer Sears, in their ... Specifically, respect complete bowls and stand.” with set glove compartment, Skutley papers found testi- impounded ear . . . . but before . . . fied “. . was] in the [the glove papers compartment ... Wesley various he had seen Eugene and Green.” with the names night completely made at and the record is The search was car any evidence whether the searched was barren of under a searching light, or whether the three men light, near flashlights they opened to look into the car car, used before it. arguendo Assuming through that the officers look the win- opening it, car before dows of the these accord- observations ing nothing testimony record, to revealed but items general Appellant already merchandise. had misdirected they police to one ear. At the time decided to search the appellant’s Lincoln, white 1956 did not know it was car. searched, appellant’s After the car was was identified as car. subsequently the back The items on seat identified as Department from Sears and those taken Hinshaw’s Store. probable Manifestly, when an officer has cause to make a legal warrant, search without a cause to be at a location contraband, he observes he need not blind where himself to (People Samuels, Cal.App.2d what he sees. 351, 359 Cal.Rptr. 290].) sharp The law also draws a distinction between the observation of contraband material and material merely evidentiary. is not offensive itself but (People Roberts, 721].) 47 Cal.2d majority assert that “. . . we are not llere confronted right with . . indiscriminately . of . . . open or to conduct a true ‘search’ of the interiors of vehicles adjacent found to a store where a recent theft has been com- This, precisely question. mitted . . . .” to me is Whether proved other cars were searched before what appel- found, appear. lant's does not The record does not single pair establish that a of trousers with “raw cuffs” or price tag through that even one was seen the windows of the Appellant already car. misdirected Lin- one upon coln, and there is no other evidence which the search justified. for a Lincoln fact, logical white could be con- assuming appellant clusion could be that had a car—it was Lincoln, a white just 1956 or otherwise. It would be logical to assume that ear was a black Cadillac.
520 prose- on warrant, the burden was the a search Absent (Badillo legality search. v. prove the cution to I 23].) 269 P.2d do not be- Court, 46 Cal.2d Superior [294 case at bench that burden has the record lieve that sustained. incident to an must be arrest a warrant A without search People Cruz, questioned. In v. to be 61 legality is not if its Cal.Rptr. says page 841, 395 at court [40 Cal.2d ‘incidental to an arrest’ un is not search : P.2d [A] 889] premises made; where the arrest is to the limited it is less contemporaneous therewith; object; definite and is rea has a Burke, People However, in v. scope”. Cal.2d sonable says: Cal.Rptr. 531, 67], 394 P.2d the court 575, 579-580 [39 pointed courts have out respect to automobiles “With a practicable to obtain warrant always it is out of quickly can be moved which of a vehicle search locality, and, instances a search without a
therefore, some justified by probable cause to believe that an warrant will subject are to articles which law automobile contains seizure. ease whether the facts fall in each determined
“It must be a exceptions the constitutional rule that to any of the within may be made. had before a search must be search warrant a contemporaneous search without war right to make things under ac extends upon lawful arrest rant depending upon an extent and, to control immediate cused’s (Cf. he is arrested.” place where circumstances, to the Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 137, 152 Terry, People v. [37 home, however, search of with the 381].) As P.2d too remote time or not be following an arrest must search place States, (Preston United 376 U.S. the arrest. 777].) 881,11 L.Ed.2d 364, 367 S.Ct. bench was not incident case at the car The search supra ; People Burke, (People v. appellant’s arrest. arrested, he was still appellant was At the time Cruz, supra.) knowledge had no of a the officers that time and at in Sears inquiry, until after not know and did Hinshaw’s theft store in a car. arrived at the appellant had or whether Cal.Rptr. Harris, People 62 Cal.2d (Cf. at Sears appellant arrived Further, whether 225].) for which he was to the crime immaterial on foot car or arrested, theft from Sears. to wit: majority officerswere entitled that the agree with the I they cause to if had reasonable believe for a vehicle in furtherance of the appellant used a vehicle crime. ease whether the officers issue in this acted However, the any intervening searching vehicle, reasonably ve- ultimately focused their hicle, upon attention stronger probable in the chain of cause than a without a link diseription already of which was car similar to one the *13 general items suspect, and the observation of of merchandise possibly shown record to identifiable as stolen until after I do not consider these items the search. facts within any exceptions constitutional rule that a may warrant must be had before a search be made. urges
Respondent
appel
with
that the search was made
prosecution,
lant’s consent. When consent
claimed
presenting
it has
to the
the burden
facts
court
will
court to
whether consent was
enable the
determine
fact
given. (People Gorg,
776,
v.
782
P.2d 469] ;
Cal.2d
[291
Superior Court,
439,
Castaneda v.
59 Cal.2d
Cal.
[30
Rptr. 1,