Listen to my full interview with Derek Steyer on the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade on WFMJ-TV's podcast.
To listen CLICK HERE
* Criminal Defense Attorney * Former Prosecutor * Former Parole Board Member * 724-658-8535
Listen to my full interview with Derek Steyer on the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade on WFMJ-TV's podcast.
To listen CLICK HERE
Watch my interview with Derek Steyer on WFMJ-TV21 News regarding the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
To watch the interview CLICK HERE
The Supreme Court ruled today, 6–3, that if a police officer fails to inform you of your right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination when you're suspected of a crime, you can't sue under federal law as a violation of your civil rights, reported Reason.
To be clear, the Court isn't overturning Miranda v. Arizona,
the 1966 Supreme Court ruling that determined that it's a violation of a
suspect's Fifth Amendment rights for police to interrogate him or her about a
crime without informing them they have the right to remain silent and the right
to request an attorney. But what the Court ruled today is that if and when this
right is violated, people can't turn to Section 1983 of
the U.S. code and file a civil action lawsuit against the police officer or law
enforcement agency and seek redress or damages.
Today's ruling, Vega v.
Tekoh, involved an investigation of sexual assault at a Los Angeles medical
center in 2014. Terence Tekoh worked at the medical center and was interrogated
by L.A. County Deputy Carlos Vega. Vega did not tell Tekoh about his Miranda rights
and extracted a written confession. This confession was admitted into evidence
in court, and a judge determined that his Miranda rights weren't
violated because he wasn't in custody when he confessed. Even so, the first
case ended in a mistrial, and then Tekoh was ultimately found not guilty in a
second trial. Tekoh then sued using Section 1983 against Vega and others seeking
damages for the violation of his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. The case wound its way all the way up to the Supreme Court
to hear in April. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato
Institute together
submitted an amicus brief to the Court supporting the
position that Vega could be held liable.
But in a pure ideological split, the Court today
determined that a violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a
basis for a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983. Justice Samuel Alito wrote
the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Essentially, Alito's opinion says that the purpose
of Miranda is to serve as a safeguard against compelled
self-incrimination by police or prosecutors. It was not intended to establish
that it was inherently a Fifth Amendment violation if somebody voluntarily
confesses or self-incriminates himself or herself prior to or absent of a Miranda warning.
The Miranda warning is intended to be a "prophylactic," to
safeguard against potential deliberate abuse. Alito writes:
Miranda did not hold that a violation of the
rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it
is difficult to see how it could have held otherwise. For one thing, it is easy
to imagine many situations in which an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may
make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion. In addition,
the warnings that the Court required included components, such as notification
of the right to have retained or appointed counsel present during questioning,
that do not concern self-incrimination per se but are instead plainly designed
to safeguard that right. And the same is true of Miranda's detailed rules
about the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
Alito concludes that because a violation of Miranda is
not automatically a violation of the Fifth Amendment, there is no justification
to permit a civil rights lawsuit. The opinion reverses a judgment in Tekoh's
favor and remands it back to the lower courts to revisit.
The dissent is written by Justice Elena Kagan and
joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan observes the
obvious in her dissent, that this ruling will make it harder for defendants to
pursue legal remedies when their rights are violated:
The majority observes that defendants may still seek
"the suppression at trial of statements obtained" in violation
of Miranda's procedures. … But sometimes, such a statement will not be
suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted
and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting
the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he
has suffered? The point of §1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy "is
a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional
guarantees." … The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by
denying the remedy.
Reason's Billy Binion noted
earlier this week that the Supreme Court had declined to take on cases
where federal officers had been granted civil liability against lawsuits when
they violate the rights of citizens and even commit crimes in the line of duty.
This case continues this trend—the Supreme Court recognizes that these
constitutional rights exist, but by shielding officers from liability for
violating these rights, the Court undermines the necessary tools to make sure
police take them seriously.
To read more CLICK HERE
“It’s direct, indisputable, empirical evidence that this kind of common claim that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun’ is wrong.”
Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.
The lengthy police response to a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and the death of an armed security guard as part of an attack on a Buffalo supermarket last month have drawn fresh scrutiny to a recurring (and uniquely American) debate: What role should the police and bystanders play in active shooter attacks, and what interventions would best stop the violence?
The debate has moved to Capitol Hill as lawmakers
consider gun
safety legislation that could increase funding for mental health
services, school safety and other measures aimed at keeping guns out of the
hands of dangerous people. “What stops armed bad guys is armed good guys,”
Senator Ted Cruz suggested in
the wake of the Uvalde shooting, echoing many other gun
rights advocates over the years.
Researchers who study active shooter events say it
can be difficult to draw broad policy conclusions from individual episodes, but
a review of data from two decades of such attacks reveals patterns in how they
unfold, and how hard they are to stop once they have begun, reports The New York Times.
There were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in
which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated
people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The
country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.
The data comes from the Advanced Law Enforcement
Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, whose researchers
work with the F.B.I. to catalog and examine these attacks. Unlike mass shooting
tallies that count a minimum number of people shot or killed, the active attack
data includes episodes with fewer casualties, but researchers exclude domestic
shootings and gang-related attacks.
Researchers caution that some older attacks may be
missing from the data, but they feel confident in their overall assessment that
shootings are increasing. What is less clear is how to limit the damage of these
attacks, given how quickly they unfold and how powerful the weapons used can
be.
Most attacks captured in the data were already over
before law enforcement arrived. People at the scene did intervene, sometimes
shooting the attackers, but typically physically subduing them. But in about
half of all cases, the attackers commited suicide or simply stopped shooting
and fled.
“It’s direct, indisputable, empirical evidence that this kind of common claim that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun’ is wrong,” said Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, who has studied mass shootings for more than a decade. “It’s demonstrably false, because often they are stopping themselves.”
Police officers shoot or physically subdue the shooter in less than a third of attacks
Most events end before the police arrive, but police
officers are usually the ones to end an attack if they get to the scene while
it is ongoing.
Hunter Martaindale, director of research at the
ALERRT Center, said the group has used the data to train law enforcement that
“When you show up and this is going on, you are going to be the one to solve
this problem.”
Information on police response time is incomplete,
but in the available data, it took law enforcement three minutes, on average,
to arrive at the scene of an active shooting.
Yet, even when law enforcement responds quickly —
sometimes within seconds — or if officers are already on the scene when the
attack begins, active shooters can still wound and kill many people.
“Law enforcement could be one minute out, and if
that individual is proficient with the weapon system they’re using, they can
quickly go through a lot of ammunition,” Mr. Martaindale said. “And if they’re
proficient in their accuracy, you could have very high victim counts.”
In Dayton, Ohio, in 2019, an attacker shot 26
people and killed nine outside a downtown bar in the 32 seconds before a police
officer on duty shot the attacker. A week earlier, at the Gilroy Garlic
Festival in Northern California, nearby officers engaged an attacker
within a minute of his opening fire, but after 20 people had been shot. Three
victims died and the attacker died by suicide.
“There’s not a lot that can be done to stop someone
in the opening seconds of harming a significant number of people,” Mr. Lankford
said.
And, like in Uvalde, law enforcement does not always bring an attack to a quick end. When a gunman opened fire at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in 2016, a detective working extra duty shot at the gunman from outside the club. More police officers began arriving less than two minutes later. But the police did not enter the club for several minutes, after the gunman had paused his initial assault. Police officers ended the attack when they shot the gunman three hours after the assault began. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 more were wounded.
Bystanders stop some attackers, more often
In the wake of deadly shootings, gun rights
advocates often push to arm more people, citing prominent examples where a
“good guy with a gun” stopped a “bad guy.”
After a gunman shot 46 people in a church in Sutherland
Springs, Texas, in 2017, an armed neighbor arrived at the scene and exchanged
gunfire with the gunman, injuring him, until the gunman fled.
But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not
common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a
security guard or an off-duty police officer.
“The actual data show that some of these kind of
heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just
extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.
In fact, having more than one armed person at the
scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry
dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada,
Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the
gunman.
It was twice as common for bystanders to physically
subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them. At Seattle
Pacific University in 2014, a student security guard pepper sprayed and
tackled a gunman who was reloading his weapon during an attack that killed one
and injured three others. The guard took the attacker’s gun away and held the
attacker until law enforcement arrived.
When a gunman entered a classroom at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2019, a student tackled him. The student was shot and killed, but the police chief said the attack would have had a far worse death toll had the student not intervened.
One in four attacks ends in a shooter suicide
In more than a quarter of episodes, the attackers
ended the shootings by turning the guns on themselves.
Many attackers died by suicide before the police
arrived. At a Binghamton, N.Y., immigration services center in 2009, an
attacker shot 17 people, killing 13, before turning the gun on himself. A
middleschooler died by suicide after shooting two fellow students and a teacher
in Sparks, Nev., in 2013. After shooting 471 people at the Route 91
Harvest Festival in Las Vegas from a hotel room overlooking the festival,
the gunman died by suicide before the police arrived to his room.
The share of attackers who die by suicide is most
likely a fraction of those who have suicidal expectations, Mr. Lankford said.
Based on evidence attackers leave before attacks, like online posts or suicide
notes, more say they expect to die. Sometimes they expect to provoke law
enforcement to kill them, Mr. Lankford said.
Police officers exchanged gunfire in 2018 with a
gunman who shot 12 people at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., before he
shot himself.
At Virginia Tech in 2007, a gunman locked doors to the building, initially stalling the police, before attacking students and professors, eventually shooting 49 people. But once law enforcement was able to enter, the attacker shot himself as police officers approached.
One in four attackers leaves the scene (though most are later caught)
About a quarter of shootings ended when the attacker
or attackers stopped of their own accord and left the scene, then were
apprehended or died by suicide at another location.
Many attacks that end when the shooter flees are
spontaneous; for example, one may stem from a dispute that escalates when one
party pulls out a gun.
In San Antonio in 2019, a man had a
disagreement with the staff of a moving company, then
opened fire on the company’s workers before running away. The police
apprehended him later without incident. Last year, a man who was kicked out of
a nightclub in Wichita, Kan., after a fight returned and shot six
people, killing one. He fled the scene, and the police arrested him a month
later in Phoenix.
Because these kinds of attacks are generally not
planned, attackers may be more inclined to flee in hopes of getting away, Mr.
Martaindale said.
But many premeditated attacks also ended when the
attacker or attackers left the scene. After a gunman shot 34 people in 2018
at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., he dropped his
weapon and fled the school with other students, bypassing police officers who
had arrived on the scene but had not yet attempted to intervene. After fleeing,
the gunman walked to a Walmart, bought a drink at a Subway and stopped at a
McDonald’s before he
was apprehended by the police on a residential street.
In El Paso, a gunman shot 45 people, killing
23, in a Walmart before fleeing the scene. The police arrested him down the
road without incident.
Why attackers stop themselves is a hard thing to
know, but Mr. Lankford, after studying shooters for years, has some guesses.
One is that sometimes, shooters plan for a dramatic confrontation with the
police that does not happen. Another possibility, he said, is that the reality
of their actions sets in.
To read more CLICK HERE
The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District has a 21-point security plan that ordered school doors locked at all times and required students to practice lockdown drills "on a regular basis," in the event of a mass shooting, reporter Insider.
But during the school shooting on May 24 that left
19 children and 2 teachers dead, many of the measures and procedures designed
to prevent bloodshed may have hampered police's response as officers took over
an hour to confront the shooter while students inside the classrooms begged for
help.
Interviews given by the school's embattled police
chief and a teacher who survived the massacre reveal how the precautions
against mass shootings were turned against police.
Locked doors kept police from entering the classroom
where the shooter was barricaded
The gunman entered classrooms 111 and 112 and opened
fire at about 11:33 a.m. He locked the doors to the adjoining rooms,
leaving himself inside — alongside his victims — for over an hour before police
eventually entered and shot him dead.
School district police chief Pete Arredondo — who
has faced criticism amid accusations he delayed the tactical response to the shooting — told the Texas Tribune in an interview published on Thursday
that UCISD officers don't carry master keys to school classrooms.
He said officers had to wait for school staff to
provide multiple rings of keys to try to open the door.
"I was praying one of them was going to open up
the door each time I tried a key," Arredondo told the Tribune.
It took more than an hour for Arredondo to receive a
key that finally opened the door, the Tribune reported.
As they were waiting for keys for approximately 78
minutes, Arredondo said officers on the scene worked to evacuate over 500 other
students and teachers from the building to lead them to safety.
"It's not that someone said stand down,"
Arredondo's lawyer, George E. Hyde, told the Tribune. "It was 'Right now,
we can't get in until we get the tools. So we're going to do what we can do to
save lives.' And what was that? It was to evacuate the students and the parents
and the teachers out of the rooms."
Reinforced classroom doors made it impossible for
police officers to break in without a key
Aside from locks, reinforcements on the doors also
prevented police from getting through to the classrooms.
Arredondo told the Tribune that classroom doors at
Robb Elementary are "reinforced with a hefty steel jamb, designed to keep
an attacker on the outside from forcing their way in."
But that same measure made it impossible for
Arredondo and other officers who entered the school to kick in the door and
enter without a key, he said.
Additionally, experts told the Tribune that breaking
through windows to get into the classroom would have caused more casualties.
Turned-off lights kept cops from seeing into the
classrooms
The Standard Response Protocol, a shooting safety guide used by the Uvalde school
district, recommends teachers and students turn off classroom lights to prevent
a shooter from seeing students and teachers hiding inside.
The Tribune reported that the lights were off in
classrooms during the Robb Elementary shooting.
Arredondo told the Tribune that because the lights
were off, cops had little visibility inside the classrooms, making it difficult
to pinpoint the shooter's exact location.
It also made it more difficult to assess whether the
teachers and students inside were alive, the Tribune reported.
One Robb Elementary teacher said active shooting
training set his students up 'like ducks' for the shooter
Robb Elementary teacher Arnulfo Reyes, whose 11
fourth-grade students were all killed in the May 24 shooting, told "Good
Morning America" that active shooting training protocol set
the children up "like ducks" during the shooting.
Reyes said his students were watching a movie in
class following an end-of-year celebration when they heard gunshots.
He told "Good Morning America" that he
told the students to hide under a table and pretend to be asleep. The gunman
then came into the classroom and opened fire, shooting Reyes twice and killing
the students.
"We trained our kids to sit under the table,
and that's what I thought at the time. But we set them up to be like
ducks," he said, adding that he "tried his best" and tearfully
apologized to the families of his students.
Gov. Abbott wants more active shooter training in
schools
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called to deploy
"nationally recognized active shooter training to all Texas school
districts, prioritizing school-based law enforcement," in the weeks since
the shooting. He said training on these protocols should begin before the
2022-2023 school year.
Abbott said that more training "will help law
enforcement on school campuses better respond to these situations."
But the governor's office did not respond to
multiple requests for comment asking if the training would be updated since
police and Reyes have said the training contributed to making the shooting
worse.
Reyes told "Good Morning America" that he
believes training won't
help.
"It all happened too fast. Training, no training, all kinds of training — nothing gets you ready for this," Reyes told "Good Morning America" in an interview that aired Tuesday. "You can give us all the training you want, but laws have to change."
To read more CLICK HERE
The NACDL published a report last August warning the public that, without the legal protections under Roe v. Wade, thousands of abortion laws could lead to a new chapter of mass incarceration, reported NPR.
The invasion of privacy alone is a big concern to the NACDL. Anyone who needs or wants an abortion outside of the legal limits of their state is not only a target for criminal charges, but risks implicating others, too — by confiding in friends or family, crossing state lines for procedures, or even using a transportation app to get to an appointment.
"Not just fines. We're talking about prison
time," Wayne said. "We're talking about minimum mandatory sentences —
aiding or abetting someone who gets ultimately charged with manslaughter or
murder, which is a life sentence."
And for those who think a future of mass incarceration is too unlikely, Wayne points to the War on Drugs, starting in 1971.
"Suddenly people who were being prosecuted for
small amounts of drugs were now involved in larger and greater conspiracies
with minimum mandatory sentences," Wayne said. "People were looking
at life sentences and still remain incarcerated to this day. You have to ask
yourself, what lessons did we really learn?"
Who will actually pay the price?
The NACDL has tens of thousands of members. Actual
feelings and opinions on abortion vary within the organization, as expected.
But that's not what this collective red alert is about.
Wayne says that despite a range of personal views,
the membership as a whole is concerned about invasion of privacy, government
overreach, and a massive stretch on legal resources if a wave of
abortion-related criminal charges hits the U.S.
And that pain won't be distributed equally.
"Whenever you're talking about overcriminalization, you're talking about money," Wayne said. "Rich people will always be able to lawyer up. They will always have access to attorneys. Poor people will be left behind."
She points to an already overwhelmed public defender
system, which people can't access until after their legal troubles have
started.
"I don't get a lawyer, if I'm poor, until I'm
actually charged with a crime in this country in most jurisdictions," she
said. "So I have to wait until that moment until I get charged. If I have
money, access to counsel, I get advice on the front end of being able to
perhaps avoid the consequences that I would face if I didn't have money."
The perfect victim
A future without Roe v. Wade ultimately leads back to that courtroom and jury, where the task at hand becomes navigating perception. The burden of being "the perfect victim" is nothing new when it comes to cases of harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence.
"To be a perfect victim of sexual assault,
human trafficking or intimate partner violence, you cannot also struggle with
addiction, poverty or mental illness," wrote Amanda Rodriguez, a former
federal prosecutor and the executive director of Baltimore's rape crisis
center, TurnAround Inc, in a 2021
op-ed for the Baltimore Sun. "To be a perfect victim, you cannot
accept a drink, engage in commercial sex or walk alone at night. You cannot
wear tight clothes or have a criminal record. You cannot be human."
Except with a criminalized abortion, the
"victim" isn't pressing charges. They're fighting them.
"At the end of the day, it's going to be the
bias going into the courtroom," Wayne said. "The bias dealing with
the district attorney who has preconceived notions of their own about how these
cases should be prosecuted, the judges who oversee these cases and how they
feel — and then ultimately go to the jurors' bias."
And that's a main focus of NACDL's training at the
moment: preparing to help clients who have been charged with abortion-related
crimes look sympathetic and relatable to a group of their peers (wherein the
degree of difficulty varies, depending
on your race.)
But in some cases, that might not be enough. While
more than a dozen states have trigger laws that would immediately go into
effect if Roe is lifted, restrictive abortion bans already exist in many states
— some without exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
And the Supreme Court might
be about to grant state lawmakers the freedom to ban abortion however
they want.So when a jury is asked to determine whether someone broke a law
post-Roe, even a "perfect victim" might still be a guilty one.
To read more CLICK HERE
In the wake of the Uvalde, Tex., mass shooting, some Hollywood storytellers are questioning the film industry’s love affair with guns. There’s one thing these filmmakers and showrunners could do to try to stem the tide of gun violence: stop sanitizing what guns do to human bodies, writes Sonny Bunch in the Washington Post. Hollywood should step up and show what journalists generally can’t depict, be it the victim of a mass shooting identifiable only by DNA or the aftermath of a suicide carried out with a gun.
Working in concert with the Brady Center to Prevent
Gun Violence, more than 200 writers, directors, and producers such as J.J.
Abrams, Mark Ruffalo, and Adam McKay recently signed
on to an open letter calling for a period of introspection into how
guns are used on-screen.
“Cultural attitudes toward smoking, drunk driving,
seatbelts and marriage equality have all evolved due in large part to movies’
and TV’s influence,” the letter says. “It’s time to take on gun safety.”
Some specific suggestions: Show gun owners making
use of gun safes; limit the portrayal of children and guns in the same scenes;
and consider whether guns are necessary in any given scene.
This deliberation can’t hurt, but it probably won’t
do much good either: Of the 45,222 people who died
of gun-related injuries in 2020, 54 percent of those deaths were a
result of suicide, 43 percent were murders, and roughly 1 percent were from
accidents.
The extent to which on-screen violence influences
off-screen behavior has bedeviled the film industry for as long as scolds have
been trying to shut projectors off. The letter writers are quick to brush this
aside, yet their hope that on-screen depictions of “responsible gun ownership”
can influence off-screen behavior seems to open the door to an admission that
irresponsible gun ownership can do the same.
The debate on this matter is long with much evidence
on both sides. Some studies suggest exposing
children to violence can have long-lasting effects; others
suggest TV
is less important than socialization. I do not propose to resolve it here.
However, as someone who owns a gun, watches a lot of
violent movies and enjoys the occasional first-person shooter video game, I’m
skeptical of claims that people in the aggregate are driven to violence by what
they see on-screen. Yes, a certain number of already-deranged people are
inspired by what they see in media — your John Hinckleys or
your Matrix
killers. But there’s little Hollywood can, or should, do to account for
random crazies.
If “America’s storytellers” really want to change
public perception of guns, they should consider being more honest on-screen
about what bullets do to bodies. The issue isn’t really on-screen violence —
it’s bloodless on-screen violence, the sort of violence in which guns
fire and bodies simply fall to the ground in what could just as easily be sleep
as death.
Journalist Jason Fagone in 2017 talked to
trauma surgeons who deal with the reality of gun violence — mangled
limbs, severed arteries, invasive and repeated surgeries — as well as victims.
And that reality is sometimes simultaneously surreally and banally gruesome.
One man shot in the abdomen, Fagone wrote, “spent
the next 11 months in the hospital, immobilized in bed, with an open wound down
the front of him that had the circumference of a basketball. It got to the
point where it was a normal thing for him to look down and think, oh, those are
my intestines, there they are.”
Realistic violence in movies is often jarring when
we see it because we see it so rarely. The only time I’ve seen an audience
watching an installment of the “John Wick” franchise flinch had nothing to do
with the abundance of gunplay. Early in the third film, a brawl ends with the
titular assassin jamming a knife into the eye of an assailant. It’s intimate,
bloody and horrifying — more so than every gun shot that preceded it.
If television and film luminaries really want to
change the discussion of guns, they’ll pursue a bloodier type of filmmaking.
Make standard the use of squibs — little explosives that create geysers of fake
blood — during gunplay. These practical effects not only heighten the impact of
the violence we see but also slow down productions that rely too greatly on
cheap kills, causing a bit more thoughtfulness about when on-screen
violence should be deployed.
If Hollywood wants to help reduce suicides, which
constitute the majority of gun-violence deaths in the United States, it should
show people what happens when a bullet goes through a head. Show the aftermath.
The cleanup. That it’s not like a light softly going out, that it’s an
extremely violent act, one that will leave a mess for your loved ones.
Some have suggested we need an “Emmett Till moment” after Uvalde showing photos of the
victims and what the bullets did to their bodies. The sentiment is
understandable, as is the disgust or the concerns about exploitation such a
suggestion generates.
Those qualms wouldn’t apply to a
fictionalized-but-realistic portrayal of such horror, however. And these images
could help the public understand what gun violence really means.
To read more CLICK HERE