text:
No. 98,161
1. Miranda warnings are required for a custodial interrogation. There are thus two prerequisites to the applicability of Miranda: custody and interrogation.
2. A person is in custody for Miranda purposes when formally taken into custody or deprived of his or her freedom of action in a significant way. A court must consider the circumstances of the interrogation and whether a reasonable person would have felt that he or she could terminate the investigation and leave.
3. In some cases, such as routine traffic stops in which the detention is brief and the encounter occurs in public, no Miranda warnings are required even though the person is not free to leave. When a person is subject to restraints comparable to those associated with formal arrest, however, the person is in custody for Miranda purposes.
4. A person is interrogated for Miranda purposes when police officers use words or actions that they should reasonably know are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
5. Eight nonexclusive factors may be considered in determining whether an interrogation is a custodial one: (1) the time and place of the interrogation, (2) the length of the interrogation, (3) the number of officers present, (4) the statements made by the officers and by the defendant, (5) the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or something equivalent to that, such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at an exit door, (6) whether the defendant is being questioned as a suspect or as a witness, (7) whether the defendant arrived voluntarily at the site of interrogation, and (8) whether the defendant left freely, was detained, or was arrested following the interrogation.
6. On the facts of this case, a person who was questioned by one police officer--while being patted down by another--immediately after he had been ordered at gunpoint out of hiding in a small, dark storage shed at night was in custody for purposes of Miranda. Under these circumstances, the pressures inherent in a situation dominated to that point by police force and physical restraint had not dissipated.
7. On the facts of this case, a person, who had been found at night hiding in a small, dark storage shed where he had no apparent right to be present, was interrogated for purposes of Miranda when police asked him a question designed to tie him to a suspicious person reported earlier that evening in the mobile-home park where the shed was located. Under these circumstances, officers should have known that the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Appeal from Lyon District Court, MERLIN G. WHEELER, judge. Opinion filed December 7, 2007. Affirmed.
Amy L. Aranda, assistant county attorney, Vernon E. Buck, county attorney, and Paul J. Morrison, attorney general, for appellant.
Stephen J. Atherton, of Atherton & Huth, of Emporia, for appellee.
Before GREENE, P.J., MALONE and LEBEN, JJ.
LEBEN, J.: Anthony Bordeaux was ordered at gunpoint to come out of an open garden shed in which he was hiding. The shed was located behind a mobile home; an owner of a neighboring lot in the mobile-home park had called police to investigate a suspicious man wearing blue jeans, a black coat, and a black stocking cap. Once Bordeaux came out of the shed, the officer ordered him to put his hands on top of the shed so that the officer could conduct a pat-down for weapons. Bordeaux refused this order at least twice before complying, the officer's demands presumably becoming more and more insistent until Bordeaux complied. While one officer was conducting the pat-down--perhaps with Bordeaux already in handcuffs--another officer grabbed a black coat from inside the shed and asked Bordeaux whether it was his coat. Bordeaux admitted that it was.
This case was in district court because drugs were found in the coat. The case is in the Court of Appeals because the district court suppressed Bordeaux's statement admitting ownership of the coat, and the State has appealed. The district court's ruling was based on violation of the well-known rule in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), which precludes police interrogation of suspects in custody unless several warnings are given as a procedural safeguard. We agree with the district court that Bordeaux, who was in the midst of a pat-down search immediately after being held at gunpoint, was in custody for purposes of Miranda. We also agree with the district court that the officer interrogated him when he asked Bordeaux the question. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment suppressing Bordeaux's response during the impermissible custodial interrogation.
On appeal, we review the factual findings of the district court to be sure that they were supported by substantial competent evidence. The legal conclusions drawn from those facts, including whether a person was in custody at the time of an interrogation, are subject to de novo review, and no deference is owed to the legal conclusions of the district court. State v. Jones, 283 Kan. 186, 192, 151 P.3d 22 (2007).
The State has challenged both prongs of the district court's Miranda analysis. First, the State argues that Bordeaux was not in custody. Second, the State argues that he was not interrogated.
Bordeaux Was in Custody for Miranda Purposes When He Was Being Patted Down
Immediately After Having Been Ordered Out of Hiding at Gunpoint.
Miranda warnings are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides a right to remain silent about possible criminal wrongdoing and thus avoids coerced statements and confessions. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405, 120 S. Ct. 2326 (2000). The Miranda warnings are familiar to all: that the defendant "has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights has been interpreted to provide the same protection. Jones, 283 Kan. at 194.
The Miranda opinion held that its rule applied when a person had "been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." 384 U.S. at 444. Later cases have established two essential inquiries for determining whether someone is in custody under Miranda. First, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation? Second, under those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt that he or she could terminate the investigation and leave? Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 663, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938, 124 S. Ct. 2140 (2004) (citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383, 116 S. Ct. 457 [1995]); Jones, 283 Kan. at 193-94 (citing Thompson).
But other cases complicate the apparent simplicity of the test of whether or not a reasonable person would feel free to leave. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 104 S. Ct. 3138 (1984), the Court ruled that Miranda warnings were not required when a person was questioned in a routine traffic stop. The Court recognized that "a traffic stop significantly curtails the 'freedom of action' of the driver," 468 U.S. at 436, which would seem to trigger the requirement of Miranda warnings as the test had been stated in Miranda. The Court nonetheless concluded that Miranda warnings were not required because most people know that traffic stops are ordinarily brief and because most such stops occur in public areas, so that the motorist would not feel "completely at the mercy of the police." 468 U.S. at 437-39. According to Berkemer, the proper question was "whether a traffic stop exerts upon a detained person pressures that sufficiently impair his free exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights." 468 U.S. at 437. The Court summarized later in Berkemer that when a suspect is "subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest," Miranda warnings must be given. 468 U.S. at 441.
Berkemer decided that the principles of Miranda apply even to traffic stops, and that a routine traffic stop--in which Miranda warnings are not required--may rise to the level where the motorist is "for practical purposes" in custody, which would require Miranda warnings. 468 U.S. at 440. Whether Miranda warnings are required must be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the Berkemer opinion correctly recognized the implication of this: "the police and lower courts will continue occasionally to have difficulty deciding exactly when a suspect has been taken into custody" under this rule. 468 U.S. at 441.
We turn to the two essential inquiries for determining Miranda requirements armed both with the tests as currently phrased in Yarborough and Jones and with the knowledge that our analysis must consider the principles behind the rules. We first ask: what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation?
As to this inquiry, we defer to the district court to find the facts. At the district court, the State has the burden to prove the lawfulness of the officer's actions by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Porting, 281 Kan. 320, 324, 130 P.3d 1173 (2006). We then review that evidence to determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge's findings. Jones, 283 Kan. at 194. And here we find an issue that requires some careful review.
The district court found as a fact that Bordeaux had already been handcuffed at the time that he was asked about the coat. We think it quite clear that a person who was ordered out of hiding in a dark shed and then handcuffed immediately is in custody for Miranda purposes. See State v. Payne, 273 Kan. 466, 468, 478, 44 P.3d 419 (2002) (holding that a person taken from a car at gunpoint, placed on the ground, and handcuffed was in custody for Miranda purposes). But the State cites evidence in its brief that supports its argument that Bordeaux was not placed into handcuffs until after he had been asked about the coat, and the defendant's brief does not challenge this assertion. Still, it is the district court's obligation to make factual findings based upon the evidence presented directly to it, and it is our obligation to uphold the district court's factual findings when they are supported by substantial competent evidence.
The district court announced its findings orally after it took a recess to review the evidence. The court specifically found that "[w]hile [one officer] had handcuffed the individual we now know to be the defendant, another officer then arrived, looked inside of the storage shed, and found a black coat and almost immediately asked the defendant if that was his coat, and the defendant so indicated that it was." Under these facts, the court concluded that "[t]here is no question but what the defendant was in custody and that this was a custodial interrogation."
Two officers played the key roles here. Officer Robert Shipley found the defendant hiding in the storage shed, ordered him out of the shed at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and patted him down. Officer Scott Jones found the coat in the shed and asked the defendant about it. Two other witnesses, Officer Kelly Davis and Doug Crisp, also testified at the hearing, but neither saw Bordeaux handcuffed or asked about the coat. The defendant did not testify, so the evidence supporting the district court's factual finding must come primarily from the testimony of officers Shipley and Jones. We have reviewed their testimony in detail.
Officer Shipley's testimony can be interpreted either as suggesting that Bordeaux was handcuffed before he was patted down or as suggesting that he was patted down before he was handcuffed. Some of the answers given by Shipley were not in strict chronological order, and neither of the attorneys asked questions to clarify the time sequence. For example, in one answer on direct examination, Shipley talks about having Bordeaux step out of the shed and then doing a pat-down: "I had him step out and I did a quick pat-down on him, make sure there wasn't any weapons on his person." Later in the same answer, however, Shipley backtracks to talk about commanding Bordeaux multiple times to put his hands on top of the shed, which was a precursor to the pat-down. Shipley concludes with a statement that he put Bordeaux into handcuffs as soon as he put his hands on the shed: "[H]e finally put his hands up on the shed. Then I placed him in cuffs from that point."
Shipley used handcuffs because Bordeaux "was actively searching the area," and Shipley concluded that Bordeaux "was trying to find a way to run." Shipley noticed this before he conducted the pat-down: "I was trying to get him turned around so I could do my pat-down. He . . . was trying to find a way, his head was moving left and right, trying to find--to get--to look for a path to get away from me." Shipley put Bordeaux into handcuffs to "figure out who he was and what [Shipley] was dealing with."
The defense attorney asked in cross-examination if the pat-down occurred "immediately" after Shipley got Bordeaux out of the shed; Shipley interjected that the pat-down only occurred after Bordeaux put his hands on top of the shed. But Shipley had previously said that when Bordeaux had "finally" put his hands on top of the shed, Shipley had "then" placed him in handcuffs "from that point" because Bordeaux was looking for an escape route. Shipley also agreed with the defense counsel that Shipley "had restrained [Bordeaux] effectively from the moment [Shipley] got him out of the shed." Under Shipley's testimony, the pat-down could have occurred with the defendant's hands on top of the shed, or it could have occurred with him already in handcuffs.
Officer Jones testified that he asked about the coat while Bordeaux was being patted down and before he was handcuffed. But the district court found otherwise, and an appellate court may not reweigh the evidence, determine witness credibility, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2, 8, 128 P.3d 382 (2006). In this appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, who prevailed below. See State v. Hardyway, 264 Kan. 451, 459, 958 P.2d 618 (1998).
On the evidence presented to the district court, either Bordeaux was handcuffed before he was patted down or he was patted down before he was handcuffed. These are mutually exclusive events, so evidence that makes one scenario unlikely may provide substantial evidence that the other scenario took place. And there is substantial evidence that makes the sequence of events testified to by Jones an improbable one. Jones testified that he was not even present near the shed when Bordeaux was forced out into the open, and the events testified to by Shipley appear to have transpired quite quickly from that moment until Bordeaux was handcuffed. For Jones to have asked about the coat before Bordeaux was handcuffed, the period during which Shipley confronted Bordeaux outside the shed before handcuffing him had to last long enough for Jones to enter the area, enter the shed, make sure there was no one else in the shed, find the coat, come back out of the shed, and then ask Bordeaux about the coat. The district court's finding that Bordeaux was already in handcuffs when Jones asked about the coat is a reasonable judgment--the alternative scenario would require that all of the lengthy sequence of events described above had taken place while Shipley left Bordeaux unrestrained despite his concerns that Bordeaux was looking "for a path to get away" before the pat-down.
At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the district judge took a recess to review the evidence and to consider his decision. He returned to the courtroom and announced that he would make "some very detailed factual findings," further indicating that he had carefully considered the findings that he then announced. While there is certainly evidence in the record from which one could conclude that Jones asked about the coat before Bordeaux was handcuffed, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the factual finding of the district court. When there is substantial evidence to support the district court's factual findings, we must accept them even though there may be contrary evidence. State v. William, 248 Kan. 389, 411, 807 P.2d 1292 (1991).
Analysis of the second essential Miranda inquiry--whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the investigation and leave--is uncomplicated when one accepts the district court's factual finding that Bordeaux had been handcuffed shortly before Jones asked about the coat. Miranda recognized that "without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation . . . contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely." 384 U.S. at 467. Bordeaux had been forced at gunpoint out of hiding in a small dark shed, then handcuffed. A pat-down was in progress. No time had gone by in which the pressure inherent in this situation dominated by police force and physical restraint might have dissipated. We therefore conclude that Bordeaux, who was forced out of hiding in the shed at gunpoint and handcuffed, was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he was asked about the coat.
But Bordeaux would have been in custody for Miranda purposes even if he had not yet been handcuffed while he was questioned. We cannot tell from the record whether Officer Shipley had holstered his gun before conducting the pat-down. Even assuming that he had holstered it, however, at most only a very short time would have elapsed since Bordeaux had been held at gunpoint. Shipley forcefully barked his commands to Bordeaux. Another officer, Kelly Davis, said that she could hear Shipley's voice from her position in front of the trailer, and she agreed that Shipley "was commanding the subject to do certain things." One of those commands was that Bordeaux put his hands on top of the shed--and, under this assumed set of facts, he was then patted down while he was still in that position. Officer Shipley testified that Bordeaux was effectively restrained from the time he came out of the shed and Shipley would have had his hands on Bordeaux for the purpose of patting him down.
Under the Fifth Amendment Miranda tests we have cited from Yarborough and Jones, no reasonable person would have felt free to leave at that point. Even Officer Jones conceded that Bordeaux was not free to leave during the pat-down. This strongly suggests that Bordeaux was in custody, though Berkemer and other cases caution that this is not conclusive. Although not the sole means of analysis, Kansas courts also have considered an additional set of eight nonexclusive factors to determine whether an interrogation is a custodial one. Those factors are: (1) the time and place of the interrogation, (2) the length of the interrogation, (3) the number of officers present, (4) the statements made by the officers and by the defendant, (5) the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or something equivalent to that, such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at an exit door, (6) whether the defendant is being questioned as a suspect or as a witness, (7) whether the defendant arrived voluntarily at the site of interrogation, and (8) whether the defendant left freely, was detained, or was arrested following the interrogation. Jones, 283 Kan. at 195.
Those factors relate to the separate existence both of custody and interrogation, but several appear relevant here on the custody issue. And consideration of them suggests that this was a custodial event, whether or not Bordeaux was already in handcuffs.
There were multiple police officers, and they were forceful--using a drawn weapon, strong vocal commands, and an immobilizing position (i.e., hands on top of the shed, presumably with legs spread apart) to control Bordeaux. At the time of questioning, under the State's assumed facts, Shipley had his hands physically on Bordeaux in the process of patting him down; indeed, Shipley agreed that Bordeaux was effectively restrained from the moment that he came out of the shed. Bordeaux did not come out of the shed voluntarily; he was viewed as a suspect, not a disinterested witness. And, of course, under the State's factual assumptions, Bordeaux was handcuffed almost immediately after he answered the question about the coat.
Because of the fact-intensive nature of cases like this, nearly identical cases are hard to find. We have looked for cases addressing whether a police officer's questioning of a suspect during a pat-down constitutes custodial interrogation. Some courts have held that it does, but others have disagreed. Compare Argueta v. State, 136 Md. App. 273, 764 A.2d 863, cert. denied 364 Md. 142, 771 A.2d 1071 (2001) (holding that a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when asked about a knife found in his pocket during the pat-down); State v. Gerald B., 139 N.M. 113, 129 P.3d 149 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding that a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when asked during a pat-down whether he had any more marijuana); and Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2002), (holding that a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when asked to identify an object in his pocket that was not an apparent weapon) appeal denied 573 Pa. 671, 821 A.2d 586 (2003) with State v. Healy, 2000 WL 1062197 (Ohio App. 2000) (holding that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes when one officer asked if the defendant had bought crack cocaine in a house); and Commonwealth v. Pakacki, 587 Pa. 511, 901 A.2d 983 (2006) (three-member majority concluded that a pat-down did not place a defendant in custody for Miranda purposes regarding questions about an object in a pocket; two justices concurred, holding that Miranda applied but that plain-feel exception made evidence admissible). None of these cases has facts close to those found in Bordeaux's, and we do not find them determinative of the result here.
The State cites a number of cases in support of its position, generally suggesting that the officers' actions were reasonable under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Terry does not set out standards under the Fifth Amendment. Rather, it governs when an officer may reasonably detain someone without violating Fourth Amendment rights. "[T]he Fourth Amendment inquiry is not the same as, nor does it ultimately decide, the question of whether there was custody under the Fifth Amendment." In re I.J., 906 A.2d 249, 257 (D.C. App. 2006). Accord U. S. v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1473 (2d Cir. 1995); U. S. v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1097 (7th Cir. 1993); U. S. v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455, 1464 (10th Cir. 1993); U. S. v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1148-50 (11th Cir. 2004). The Kansas Supreme Court has recognized the distinction between the Fifth Amendment analysis needed to determine questions under Miranda and the Fourth Amendment analysis needed to determine the lawfulness of an investigatory detention. State v. Hill, 281 Kan. 136, 142, 130 P.3d 1 (2006) (distinguishing cases that apply Fifth Amendment analysis when deciding a Fourth Amendment detention issue). We therefore find the cases cited by the State unpersuasive as arguments against the Miranda analysis that we have outlined here. We conclude that whether Bordeaux was in handcuffs or not, he was in custody at the time that he was asked about the coat.
Bordeaux Was Interrogated for Miranda Purposes When He Was Asked a Question
Admittedly Designed to Tie Him to a Potential Crime.
An interrogation requires Miranda warnings only if it consists of "words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 302, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 100 S. Ct. 1682 (1980). Accord State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 P.3d 470 (2004). The State's brief argues--correctly--that officers knew full well that there was a good chance Bordeaux was up to no good when they found him hiding in the shed. As the State put it, "[U]pon locating Mr. Bordeaux hiding inside of a dark storage shed, the officers had sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, was being committed[,] or may be committed by Mr. Bordeaux."
The State made that statement in support of its argument that the police had sufficient grounds to detain Bordeaux under Terry standards, but the statement's import cannot be overlooked when determining whether an interrogation took place here. The owner of a trailer had called police to report a suspicious person lurking along the fence at the edge of the caller's property, near a storage shed in which he had stored personal property. Officers found no one suspicious the first time they came in response to that call. The trailer owner called back, however, to report that the person had been sighted a second time. Perhaps after seeing police cars in the area when they first responded, Bordeaux had hidden in an unlighted storage shed. On finding him there, officers had reasonable suspicion that he was hiding from them and that he may have committed a crime (such as burglary or trespass). See State v. Bastian, 37 Kan. App. 2d 156, 161, 150 P.3d 912 (2007) (reasonable suspicion existed to detain person found parked at night under the deck of a home based upon belief that he was a trespasser or was about to commit a crime). Hiding may be considered, along with other circumstances, in determining probable cause to arrest or to detain someone. State v. Sanchez, 137 N.M. 759, 763, 114 P.3d 1075 (N.M. App. 2005) (probable cause for arrest existed when a defendant was found hiding in a shed near the crime scene).
The State also notes in its brief that the question about the coat was designed to tie the person found in the shed to the suspicious person reported by the caller. The district court found as a matter of fact that "the officers were focusing upon [Bordeaux] as being the person who might have committed a crime." The caller had told police of a suspicious man wearing jeans and a black coat. Officer Jones found a black coat, and he asked Bordeaux whether that was his coat because that would tie Bordeaux to the person who had been seen lurking outside the fence. A question specifically designed to tie someone to a suspicious person is certainly so designed to gain incriminating information, especially when the individual being questioned has just been found hiding in a small, dark storage shed where he had no apparent right to be.
Our decision does not mean that officers are precluded from asking about weapons or other potentially harmful things that may be on a person during a pat-down. Those sorts of questions are considered part of the physical search itself, not interrogation. See State v. Gerald B., 139 N.M. at 118. But officers do not need to conduct an interrogation as to other potentially incriminating information during the pat-down. In Bordeaux's case, the question asked of him had nothing to do with potential dangers the officer might encounter during the pat-down.
The cases cited by the State on this issue are not on point. Those cases involved statements volunteered or statements that were made as officers took an inventory of property in apparent possession of someone already subject to arrest. See U. S. v. La Monica, 472 F.2d 580, 581 (9th Cir. 1972); State v. Walls, No. 89,231, Kan. App. unpublished opinion (September 26, 2003). Here, the question was asked specifically to tie Bordeaux to the suspect police had been sent to look for. Under Innis, this constituted interrogation.
Based on the factual findings of the district court, we find that Bordeaux was subjected to custodial interrogation when he was asked about the coat. Miranda warnings were thus required, but none were given. The district court properly sustained the defendant's motion to suppress his response to the single question he was asked about the coat.
We note briefly that the State has also asked us to affirm the district court's separate ruling denying the defendant's motion to suppress as to other issues. No issue other than the district court's granting of the motion to suppress is properly before us on this interlocutory appeal. K.S.A. 22-3603. We therefore may not address the other issues briefed by the State.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
MALONE, J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that Officer Scott Jones' single question to Anthony Demonde Bordeaux about the ownership of the coat amounted to a custodial interrogation. As to the district court's determination of the facts, the district court's factual finding that Bordeaux was already handcuffed when he was asked about the coat is not supported by substantial competent evidence. Jones was the only witness who testified about the coat, and his testimony established that he asked Bordeaux about the coat before Bordeaux was handcuffed, while Officer Robert Shipley was still conducting the pat-down. On direct examination, when asked, "Did you determine whose coat was in the shed?" Jones replied, "Yes, I asked the individual while Officer Shipley was patting him down if this coat was his, and he indicated, Yes, it was." Later, during cross-examination, Bordeaux's counsel asked, "And you picked up the coat and asked him if it was his?" Jones replied, "Yes, while he was being patted down." Jones was also asked, "[Bordeaux] was handcuffed immediately after he was patted down, correct?" to which Jones responded, "Yes."
The majority does not cite any direct testimony that Bordeaux was already handcuffed when questioned about the coat because there isn't any. The majority's conclusion that Bordeaux may have been handcuffed when questioned about the coat is based upon inferences from Shipley's testimony the district court may have considered but failed to articulate in making its findings. However, the only direct evidence on this point established that Bordeaux was not handcuffed at the time he was asked about the coat.
Based on this evidence, I conclude that Bordeaux was not in custody for Miranda purposes when Jones asked Bordeaux about the coat. There is no question that Bordeaux was seized when the police officers confronted him in the shed. However, this is not the same as being in custody for purposes of triggering the Miranda warnings. Courts have recognized a distinction between a custodial interrogation and an investigatory interrogation. State v. Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, 185, 14 P.3d 409 (2000). Miranda safeguards are only required for custodial interrogations, but not for investigatory, noncustodial interrogations. 270 Kan. at 186. The majority opinion blurs this distinction.
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938, 124 S. Ct. 2140 (2004), and State v. Jones, 283 Kan. 186, 151 P.3d 22 (2007), are distinguishable from Bordeaux's situation because these cases involve controlled interviews of a suspect that occurred at the police station or at some location away from the crime scene. These cases did not involve on-the-scene questioning by police officers investigating a crime prior to making an arrest. The eight factors discussed in Jones to determine whether an interrogation is custodial cannot be readily applied to on-the-scene police questioning as we have in Bordeaux's case.
Furthermore, it is too simplistic to say that Bordeaux's interrogation was custodial because a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. Whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave is the test to determine when a person has been seized or detained. State v. Hill, 281 Kan. 136, 142, 130 P.3d 1 (2006). This is not the test to determine when a person is in custody for Miranda purposes. A person who is seized or detained by the police is never free to leave or terminate the encounter. However, this fact does not make the encounter custodial for purposes of whether Miranda warnings are required before police can engage in on-the-scene questioning. Otherwise, Miranda warnings would need to be the first words spoken by a police officer during any Terry stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).
Finally, I conclude that Jones' single question to Bordeaux about the ownership of the coat did not amount to an interrogation designed to elicit an incriminating response. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 298-302, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 100 S. Ct. 1682 (1980). When the police confronted Bordeaux, they had no probable cause that he had committed a crime. In fact, no crime had even been reported to the police. The question about the ownership of the coat did not even become significant until Jones later discovered drug paraphernalia inside the coat pocket. When Jones asked Bordeaux about the coat, Jones could not have reasonably known that he would later find drug paraphernalia inside the coat pocket, and this clearly was not the reason Jones asked Bordeaux if he owned the coat. Bordeaux was not being investigated for a drug crime, or any other particular crime for that matter, when Jones asked about the coat.
The majority reasons that the police officers knew there was a good chance Bordeaux "was up to no good" when they found him in the shed, and the question about the coat was designed to tie Bordeaux to the suspicious person report that the police had received earlier that evening. There is no doubt this is correct. But the police always have reasonable suspicion of some type of criminal activity whenever they question a suspect during a Terry stop. This does not mean that every question posed by the police is designed to illicit an incriminating response. The majority's standard for what constitutes an interrogation designed to elicit an incriminating response would necessarily include any and all police questioning during every Terry stop.
Jones' question to Bordeaux about the ownership of the coat was a general on-the-scene question asked by an officer during the factfinding process. Jones was most likely just trying to understand what was going on and whether any other individuals were present at the scene. This was not a question that Jones should have reasonably known was likely to illicit an incriminating response. Thus, the question did not amount to an interrogation for Miranda purposes.


text:
Eleven years after changing the music industry with the introduction of the iPod and iTunes, the late Apple CEO won a Grammy Award.
Jobs was bestowed with a posthumous Trustees Award, which recognizes contributions to the music world by non-performers.
Apple's introduction of the iPod and the iTunes business model reinvented the music industry at a time when record labels were trying to figure out how to compete with Internet piracy.
Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of internet software and services, accepted the award on behalf of Jobs and his family at the ceremony Sunday evening.
"He told us that music shaped his life," Cue said. "It made him who he was. Everyone who knows Steve knows the profound impact that artists like Bob Dylan and the Beatles had on him."
You can watch the full video of the acceptance speech on YouTube.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
HUNTLEY - 2005 Duffy 31 SOLD
The HUNTLEY's main cabin entrance is through a sliding door from the cockpit. The port settee stretches the length of the cabin. Teak ladder stairs take you below deck where you will find a v-berth, a fully enclosed head, and a small galley.
Engine Make: Yanmar (2006) H/P: 370 HP
LOA: 31 ft 0 inLWL: 29 ft 3 in Beam: 11 ft 0 inMax Draft: 3 ft 0 in
Fuel Tanks: 1 Aluminum (200 Gallons)Holding Tanks: 1Fresh Water Tanks: 2 Plastic (60 Gallons)
The hull is solid fiberglass with vinylester skin layer and foam cored stringers. The top has an 8' cabin with a separate roof on the house forming a visor and side overhang.
The main cabin entrance is through a sliding door from the cockpit. The port settee stretches the length of the cabin. Teak ladder stairs take you below deck where you will find a v-berth, a fully enclosed head, and a small galley.
MAIN CABIN: The 8' cabin is light-filled and roomy. The three-section windshield has three stationary windows. Additionally, there are (2) stationary side windows. On the back wall a there is a full sliding door. The headliner and cabin are trimmed in teak. Four overhead lights. Access to the engine is through the cabin floor. The floor is gelcoat non-skid.
Galley Down: White Formica counter-top, microwave, and three drawers and one cabinet door for under-the-counter stowage. The refrigerator is a counter top modle.
Settee: The settee seat slides out and converts to a double. The 4" cushions are covered in dark blue Sunbrella.
Helm: 18" Destroyer wheel, Kobelt dual lever control, 12V outlet, rocker switch for the bilge, bow thruster controls. F83 Ritchie Compass, 3"; Furuno GP1850 C Map NT Chartplotter with Depth Sounder; VHF, Windshield Wiper.
BELOW DECKS: A two-step, teak ladder-stairs lead below decks. Light and ventilation is through four portlights and one overhead hatch, all with screens. There are two stainless steel, dome overhead lights. The floor is gelcoat non-skid.
V-Berth: The V-berth cushion with stowage under the berth.
Head: The enclosed head has a toilet, vanity with stowage under, and a stainless steel sink with a pull-out shower mixer faucet.
The cockpit has a molded, composite deck with gelcoat non-skid. There are stainless steel scuppers, a storage well built into the stern wash rail, and storage under the washboards. Two flood lights are located under the pilot house roof overhang.
Hardware: 8" stainless steel bow chock, through-bolted with backing plate; (4) 8" stainless steel Attwood High Profile cleats, through-bolted with backing plates; (2) 8" stailess steel Attwood High Profile stern cleats, through-bolted with backing plates; 3" stainless steel mooring bit on the bow, through-bolted with backing plate. Teak hand rails on the cabin top and trunk top; bow roller and fiberglass pulpit; PVC guard rail and PVC spray rail through-bolted
370 Yanmar soft mounted on aluminum beds. Gelcoat fiberglass drip pan under the engine. Single exhaust, Centek wet muffler, fiberglass with Series 200 flex exhaust hose, stainless T-bolt clamps, rubber flapper. The shaft is 2" Aquamet 22 stainless steel, bearings, PSS HS dripless shaft seal. Engine hook-up is with Kobelt 2009 dual lever control, Morse 33C cable, Groco SBV safety sea cock, Groco ARG sea strainer with monel basket. Drivesaver. Propeller is 24" four-blade. (2) 100 gallon aluminum fuel tanks, fuel guage, Racor fuel filter, Type A fuel hose. Hydraulic steering system with an 18" Destroyer wheel, stainless steel rudder, and bronze bearing boxes. Side Power bow thruster. Next Gen 3.5KW generator, Cruise Air Airconditioning. Spare Prop.
(2) Group 27 Series batteries mounted in boxes with cables and switch; DC Electrical panel with 12 DC circuits; zincs and grounding for boxes, rudder, seacocks and shaft; Rule 1100 bilge pump with Ultimate JR switch, forespar thru hull, rocker switch on the dash. Hella LED running lights, (6) stainless steel dome lights, (2) Halogen flood lights. 30amp 120V shore power and 50' cord; 12V outlet; 3.5kw Next-Gen generator with sound shield; cruisair air conditioner. SidePower 7" 4hp bow thruster.
F83 Ritchie Compass, 3"; Furuno GP1850 Chartplotter); VHF.
Price $99,000 SOLD
LocationMaine, United States
Contact Atlantic Boat Brokerage for more information about this listing.


text:
Any increase in Exchange Rate will be payable extra as applicable.
Rates subject to change without notice.
Other Terms / Condition as per Ace Tours booking form.
Above Rates are Valid till 31st March 2020. (Except 25th Oct to 10th Nov & 20 Dec. 2019 to 10 Jan 2020).
High season surcharge applicable.
Rates are subject to availability of Hotels .
Pan Card is compulsory for all International Adult traveller
Thailand has some of the most beautiful and lively cities and tourist attractions in the world. These sites not only play host to descending tourists and curious travelers, they also shield the raw beauty of unexplored regions and unique fests from the rest of the world. With ACE TOURS outbound tourist packages, you can explore the famous with the lesser known attractions and events on your tour to Thailand and its Cities.
Bangkok is one of the liveliest and tourist friendly cities in the whole of Thailand and this exciting metropolis is brimming with top tourist attractions. Many tourists arriving in Bangkok begin their visit by enjoying a guided tour aboard the Sightseeing City Tram, or a pleasure cruise along the Chao Phraya River. For others, a trip to one of Bangkok's many family friendly tourist attractions is in order, with popular attractions including the Bangkae Amusement Park, Temple Tour, Safari Tour and Marine Tour with Urang Utan Show, Sea Lion Show, Cow Boy Stunt Show, Dolphin Show, James Bond Spy Show, Bird Show, and traditional Thai boxing at the famous Lumpini Boxing Stadium, close to Lumpini Park.
Pattaya offers much more than naughty nightlife and beaches. There are countless attractions worth visiting, both natural wonders and man-made marvels. Tourists can visit the many Thai and Chinese temples, or view the Tiffany Show, Noongnooch Village Show with Elephant Show, Coral Island Tour with Speed Motor Boat, Glass Bottom Boat, Parasailing, Dolphins at the Sanctuary of Truth, the largest teakwood construction in the world etc. To escape the sun, visit Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum. This quirky museum houses the odd, the unusual and the unbelievable. You may not believe your eyes! The Haunted Adventure is a must. All main attractions are lined along the beaches and main roads, where one can walk from one to another or hire a 'songtaew' or 'open taxi'. Metered taxis are also available.
Looking for fun and entertainment in Singapores concrete jungle? Singapore, though known as a business hub, offers lots of entertainment centers! All for you to enjoy your stay! For Arts and Entertainment in Singapore, you can visit the National Museum, Singapore Arts Museum and Singapore Science Museum. Other famous tourist attractions include the Sultan Mosque, Sentosa Island with Underwater Walk, One Way Cable Car Ride, Dolphin Lagoon, Song of the Sea, Singapore Flyer, Universal Studio, Singapore Zoological Gardens, Night Safari and Jurong BirdPark. These Singapore tourist attractions all offer fun, excitement and entertainment. You can also learn and gain new knowledge about art, culture and nature!
All Tour cost based on 1 Euro = 80 INR, 1 USD = 70 INR, 1 Pound Sterling = 90 INR.
Any Increase in Airfare, Visa Fees, Airport Tax & Forex will be applicable.
One can enroll His/Her name for the tour by paying 50% of the total tour cost for any tour as advance. The balance amount must be paid at least 30 days before schedule date of departure of the tour, without waiting for reminder from our side.
Tourist travel at their own risk. Neither the tour operator nor their representative or staff accept any liability or responsibility for any damages, loss, injury, accident, etc. During the tour howsoever it might have caused.
The operator also reserves the right to cancel or alter the routes, carriers, time table, itinerary and hotel accommodation with or without prior notice.
Any increase in Train / Air / Bus / Visa / Cruise fares should be borne by the passenger only.
The management reserves the right to take all necessary steps including suspending the passenger who creates trouble for the management or to other fellow passengers.
During sight seeing we will take the vehicle to certain limit or to the permissible point only, from that point any arrangement to be made all extra expenses shall have to be borne by the passengers only.
We always try to provide excellent services to our beloved passenger. Even though if any passenger has any complain or claim it must be given in writing to our office within 15 days after completion of the tour. No complain or claim will be entertained after such period.
Refunds if any will be given after a period of 10 days from the date admissible claim. Refunds will be paid only by cheque and only against original Receipts. Hotels are subject to changes without Prior Notice.
Timing mentioned for the journey are only estimated for the sake of knowledge. There are frequent changes of delay in arrival at the destination due to various reasons.
The seats in the bus are allotted on First come First Serve basis at the time of booking of the tour.
All disputes / legal claims are subject to SURAT jurisdiction only.
Extra bed in the room means only extra mattress. (No cot)
In case of postponement of Inbound Journey date change charges Rs. 2000/- per pax per change shall be applicable.
Any Govt. Tax levied must be borne by the passengers only.
Preponement of journey is not allowed. It will be treated as cancellation & accordingly the cancellation charges will be applicable.
If accommodation is not available in the identified / specific hotel for the particular package tour due to reason beyond our control, we shall make our best efforts to shift the clients to hotel maintaining / having more or less the same standard. No complaint or claim shall be made by the client in this respect.
There is no REFUND payable for unutilized services during the course of tour. This includes meals, sight seeing, optional tours, hotels, etc.
All the passengers will have to carry foreign currency of minimum USD 500 per person.
Ace Tours acts as a representative of the passenger to apply Visa on his behalf with all the relevant documents as per the rules of the respective consulates. It is the passenger responsibility to comply with all the requirements of the respective consulates and obtain the Visa. We will not be responsible or liable for any additional expenses incurred due to non - availability of Visa, error in dates of Visa granted or scanned photograph on the Visa. In case of refusal of Visa all cancellation charges will be applicable including the non - refundable booking amount.
If any Airline is delayed or Canceled, Ace Tours is not responsible for any compensation for Hotels, Meals, Sight Seeing or any other claim.
Cancellation will be accepted in writing only / per person.
From the date of booking to 31 days prior to the scheduled departure of tour . . . . . 25%
Between 30 days to 16 days prior to the scheduled departure of tour . . . . . 50%
Before 15 days to 06 days of schedule departure of tour . . . . . 75%
05 days to the date of departure of tour . . . . . 100%
We are travel agent and holiday organizers only and act as agent for clients on one side and the operators of various facilities on the other side in the best interest of the clients. We do not own any hotel, do not control or operate any airline and other services like transport, services of guide(s) or any individual services etc. Although we try our best to arrange and render best services yet we do not hold any responsibility on any account whatsoever of the performance of the hotel, airlines, guide services, transport services, opening of the sight seeing places, other services or anything else on which we do not have direct control. We do not bear any responsibility and shall not be liable, whatsoever for any dissatisfaction, loss of life and property, death, damages, etc. Caused by the act of default or employees of such Independent contractors and also consequences arising out of the natural calamities, strikes, breakdown in facilities, accidents, negligence, delay in any services of all concerned and for any act of commission or commission errors, etc. We shall not be responsible for any loss / damages / claim financial compensation and any liability in any respect and on any account whatsoever. It is advisable to take comprehensive insurance including illness, accidental or any other events.


text:
View All 18 Cotton Colors
100% Cotton Fabric Stripes Collection #8 04 TWS1888PNK
- Details
- Use & Care
The 100% cotton fabric stripes collection features a series of breathtaking stripe patterns on a luxurious imported 100% long staple Egyptian cotton. Sanforized and mercerized for color fastness and shrinkage of less than 3%, the fabric is known for its long fibers which create the softest, strongest yarns for a sumptuous appearance and texture. The cotton is machine washable and versatile for both apparel and decor uses.
100% Cotton fabric
45 Inches wide
Egyptian long staple cotton
100% Cotton fabric
45 Inches wide
Egyptian long staple cotton
This item will ship in 3-5 business days (This includes overnight and express shipping)


text:
GOLD COAST, Australia - British slugger Ross Pearson earned a devastating third-round TKO on Saturday over Australian George Sotiropoulos, his opposing coach on "The Ultimate Fighter," in the main event of UFC on FX 6.
The match between Pearson (14-6 MMA, 6-3 UFC) and Sotiropoulos (14-5 MMA, 7-3 UFC) took place Saturday morning at Australia's Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre but aired in North America on Friday night due to the time difference.
Returning to lightweight after two fights at 145 pounds, Pearson appeared more muscular than in recent memory and walked confidently forward throughout the fight. The rangy Sotiropoulos tried to retreat and counter, but Pearson was the more accurate and devastating striker throughout.
"This fight's been a long time in the making, and I just wanted it so bad," Pearson said after the win. "I worked so hard for it, and I just had to take my time. I kept telling myself to go, go, go, like I normally would. But sometimes I haven't been able to get the finish because I'm pressing too hard.
"I listened to my coaches, took my time, stayed relaxed, and the knockout will come. My corner was telling me, 'It's not about power. It's about timing and finding that shot. Once you land, he's ready to go.' I just listened to them and did what I had to do."
Pearson appeared well on his way to ending the fight in the first round after a left hook put Sotiropoulos on the canvas. but the Aussie scrambled back to his feet and showed impressive resiliency.
Sotiropoulos then did his best to turn the momentum of the fight with a well-placed jab and a late scramble that saw him move to his opponent's back. However, the bell sounded before he could fully sink in a hold.
Sotiropoulos looked fresh to open the second, but he still couldn't find an answer for Pearson's slick head movement and crisp counterpunches. Pearson scored nearly three times as many punches as Sotiropoulos in the second round according to a FightMetric report, and the end appeared inevitable.
A left hook started the assault again in the third, and after Sotiropoulos climbed up off the mat, a jab-hook combo landed flush to the chin and earned Pearson the win 41 seconds into the round.
Pearson and Sotirpoulos developed a strong dislike for each other during filming of "TUF: Smashes" due to a series of clashes that took place both on- and off-camera. With the fight now in the books, Pearson said the feud is essentially over, but he isn't expecting a new friendship to develop.
"Me and George are never going to be friends," Pearson said. "He's his person and I'm my person, and we're never going to get along.
"But whatever it is, I got the fight out of the way. There's nothing to look back on."
In the night's co-feature, Team Australia's Robert Whittaker (9-1 MMA, 1-0 UFC) and Team UK's Brad Scott (9-3 MMA, 0-1 UFC) combined for one of the most memorable tournament final fights in the 18-edition history of "The Ultimate Fighter."
In the end, it was Whittaker who just edged his opponent en route to a "TUF: Smashes" welterweight title.
The bout was fast-paced and exciting from the opening bell as both fighters were willing to engage quickly and trade punches and kicks in the pocket. Whittaker appeared to get the best of the early exchanges with a slight edge in both speed and intensity of his combinations.
In the second round, Scott changed the momentum after narrowly slipping a high kick and scoring an outside trip before moving immediately to his opponent's back. The Brit searched desperately for a fight-ending rear-naked choke, but Whittaker brought the crowd to life by surviving the attacks and eventually working free to his feet.
Still, it was obvious the fight was even after two rounds.
With the fight on the line in the third, both fighters stepped up their intensity. Whittaker counted on kicks to all level and a thunderous series of elbows to score points while Scott stood on the outside and fired straight punches up the middle.
The momentum went back and forth throughout the final five minutes, but as blood trickled down Scott's face Whittaker picked up the pace, and the late volume earned him a hard-fought unanimous-decision win, 29-28 on all three judges' cards.
"The third round, I knew the second could've gone either way," Whittaker said after the fight. "I just wanted to seal that third round and make sure (the judges) knew who won it."
In the lightweight final of "The Ultimate Fighter: the Smashes," Northern Ireland's Norman Parke (17-2 MMA, 1-0 UFC) became the first man from his country to claim a tournament win on the long-running reality series with a convincing decision win over fellow Team UK fighter Colin Fletcher (8-2 MMA, 0-1 UFC).
Despite facing on opponent with an eight-inch reach advantage, Parke was able to counterstrike effectively and take his opponent to the ground nearly at will. To his credit, Fletcher remained active throughout the bout and might have had his best round in the closing five minutes, but he simply had no answer for Parke, who took a unanimous decision with scores of 30-27, 30-27 and 29-28 to earn a UFC contract.
Additionally, former Bellator Fighting Championships middleweight title holder Hector Lombard (32-3-1 MMA, 1-1 UFC) earned his first UFC win with an impressive first-round finish of Brazilian submission master Rousimar Palhares (14-5 MMA, 7-4 UFC).
Unlike his disappointing UFC debut this past June, Lombard was aggressive from the opening bell and moved forward with powerful strikes.
Palhares never looked comfortable as he tried to retreat and counter the blows, and Lombard was able to pierce his defence with sweeping hooks and powerful straights as the action moved against the cage. A native of Cuba who long resided in Australia, Lombard wowed the crowd with a flurry of punches that sent Palhares to the canvas and forced a TKO stoppage at the 3:38 mark of the opening frame.
Immediately following the result, Lombard called for a future fight with top British contender Michael Bisping, who is currently scheduled to face Vitor Belfort in January.
"I would now love to fight Michael Bisping," Lombard said. "He's said a lot of things about me lately, and I want to settle it in the Octagon."
UFC on FX 6 drew an announced attendance of 5,133 for a venue-record live gate of $900,000.


text:
Let Excel for Mac 2011 Type a Cell Formula for You
Cell formulas are equations that perform calculations or logical operations. In Excel for Mac 2011, you can enter a formula on your own, or you can use the Formula Builder, which helps you build formulae by using a step-by-step structured wizard-like method.
Here's an example that shows you how to let Excel type for you in Office 2011 for Mac so you're less likely to make a typing mistake in a formula:
Start with a blank worksheet.
Type 1 into cells A1 and B1.
The value of 1 displays in cells A1 and B1.
In cell C1, type the equals sign (=), click cell A1, type the plus sign (+), and then click cell B1.
After you type the equals sign and move the mouse, the cursor changes. A cell selection indicator moves with the mouse. When you put the selection indicator over cell A1, clicking the mouse tells Excel you want to use the value of cell A1 in the formula and types it for you. You can do the same with cell B1.
Click the green Enter button when done.
Excel displays the value of the formula in cell A1 and displays the formula in the Formula bar.
You're allowed to select ranges of cells, which is a great help when working with complicated formulas.


text:
European lawmakers on Monday voted overwhelmingly to approve new data protections aimed at shielding citizens' private communications from the probing eyes of intelligence operatives and commercial snoopers.
The first major upgrade in the continent's data privacy regulations in 18 years still faces months of negotiations to assimilate the laws and practices of the European Union's 28 member states. But the 49-3 vote of a European Parliament committee to approve the draft law reflected widespread concern among Europe's 500 million citizens for the privacy of their communications after revelations of massive data surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency.
On Monday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius summoned U.S. Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin for an explanation after the daily Le Monde reported an NSA sweep of more than 70 million private French communications in a single month beginning late last year. The story was the latest in a string of diplomatically disruptive reports about U.S. intrusions into private communications based on leaked intelligence from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, now taking refuge in Russia to evade criminal charges.
Le Monde's report prompted President Obama to call French President Francois Hollande to discuss the issue. A White House statement said Obama assured Hollande that U.S. intelligence agencies were reviewing their practices to ensure that "we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share."
The legislation endorsed by the European parliamentarians wouldn't protect Europeans' communications from surveillance that the U.S. intelligence agencies request on national security grounds. The draft law recognizes an obligation on the part of European governments to comply with requests for data from law enforcement and counter-terrorism operations.
The U.S. administration has provided little justification for the NSA's massive data sweeps except to say, as Obama did in his call to Hollande, that the fight against terrorism requires compromise on privacy matters.
German Greens Party lawmaker Jan Albrecht hailed the political consensus on the draft law as "a win-win situation for European companies, for European citizens, for consumers of the digital market in Europe." A key sponsor of the legislation, he said he hoped it would be in force by the time of European Parliament elections in May 2014, the EU Observer reported.
The new data protections will target companies that pass on personal details of Europeans to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence without proper legal documentation, the news report said.
Fines of as much as 5% of a company's annual revenue could be imposed on violators, which the authors of the legislation expect to act as a deterrent to companies to keep them from selling users' personal information to advertisers and other commercial interests.
ALSO:Russian investigators delve into bus bombing in Volgograd
Frustration, not progress, behind date for Syria peace talks
Global search under way for parents of girl found with Greek Roma
Twitter: @cjwilliamslat


text:
New Line of Natural Beef Flavors is Based on Culinary Benchmarks
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. has introduced a new range of authentic, natural beef flavors based on culinary benchmarks created by its international team of research chefs.
For the new line, Marketing and Sensory & Consumer Insights teams analyzed consumer preferences, needs, cooking traditions, and consumption habits. The Culinary team established gold-standard benchmarks via the company's CulinEssence approach to guide the flavor creation while the Sensory team characterized target flavor profiles.
Using the new consumer input and analysis, R&D developed proprietary flavoring ingredients used by the Flavorists to create the authentic flavor profiles. Sensory and Culinary teams then used trained panels around the world to validate the new creations and deliver against the culinary benchmarks.
While the new beef flavor introduction is global in scope, the flavor profiles have been localized to the taste preferences in different regions.
The new range is perfectly suitable for use in bouillon, soups, gravies, marinades and noodles.


text:
Nineteen months after Shannan Gilbert disappeared, and exactly one year after the investigation into her case led to the discovery of the first of 10 bodies on Long Island, police say they've found her remains. This morning a body was located in a marsh near where Gilbert's belongings were found earlier this week, and authorities are confident that it's her.
Police say the area initially wasn't searched very well because it was partially underwater and looked completely impassable. This week investigators cut away the brush, which Suffolk County Police Commissioner Richard Dormer described as a "very, very tough, desolate, tangled mess." Authorities still believe that Gilbert, a New Jersey sex worker, ran from a client's house and got caught in the marsh while trying to make her way to the highway. Dormer added, "there is no way Shannan Gilbert could have made it through that mess to get to the parkway."
Before this development, the families of the other 10 people, who are believed to be the victims of a serial killer, had planned to hold a vigil along Ocean Parkway. While at the event, Shannan's mother, Mari Gilbert, said she's waiting for confirmation that the 11th set of remains belongs to her daughter. Shannen's aunt added that she isn't entirely convinced that she wasn't murdered by the serial killer. Mari says that she's found some comfort in the fact that what happened to her daughter helped police find other victims. "Everyone has their destiny," she said. "Maybe this was hers."
Earlier: Police Find Belongings Of Woman Who Sparked L.I. Serial Killer Investigation


text:
Cincinnati ranks among 10 most emerging downtowns
More than 13,000 people live downtown
A national honor was announced for the City of Cincinnati.
Forbes Magazine rated Cincinnati on the list of top 10 most emerging downtowns.
After years of debate, planning and building, the city is once again attracting people to live, eat, work, shop and play downtown.
Erin Phillips lives at The Banks. "I was born and raised in Cincinnati. I've definitely seen a huge change downtown," she said.
Phillips said she wasn't at all surprised to hear that the Queen City was recognized as one of the nation's most up-and-coming downtown areas. She chose to move back to Cincinnati after graduating from college and settled downtown.
"Over the past couple years, there's been so much growth down here. A lot of young professionals are moving down here," Phillips said.
Downtown residents said the big nightlife helped them make the move. Bars were crowded with patrons listening to live music even on a Tuesday.
Downtown even draws residents who live in Northern Kentucky.
Others are coming to Cincinnati from much farther away.
"I moved here two years ago from Portland, Ore. I've noticed a lot of things started happening over on Main Street and especially here on Vine Street. There are lots of restaurants now," Over-the-Rhine resident Dyon Martin said.
Downtown Cincinnati, Inc. said downtown living rose by 12 percent in 2011.
The new Horseshoe Casino has also helped draw crowds downtown.
Forbes chose its list based on overall investment in downtown areas. The magazine estimates that $1.3 billion has been invested in downtown Cincinnati.
More than 13,000 people now live downtown.
Forbes also noted that when The Banks apartments opened, they boasted a 98 percent occupancy rate.


text:
From unexpected encounters and love affairs with travel, to torrid affairs with beautiful, sought-after shoes and go-to beauty products, a few of our favorite bloggers share their love stories with us this Valentine's Day.
Jen of Life with Levi – Facebook Official
For some couples, changing their Facebook status is an important part of falling in love. For us, it was something we kind of forgot about along the way. We were too busy falling in love with each other face-to-face. A few weeks before making our relationship Facebook official, I had posted my meet-the-boyfriend reader interview. Part of the mystery was, I wanted to make sure things were serious before "announcing" anything. Of course, our close friends & family already knew, but it was still fun to announce our relationship to the rest of the world. I imagine it's kind of like how a girl in the '80s felt like when her boyfriend gave her his letter jacket to wear around campus.
Brittany of Clumps of Mascara – Hello Clari(sonic)
I met her about four years ago. Or maybe it was three. Details get fuzzy whenever I try to think back on our first meeting. You see, I was minding my own business, being all "whatever" about love. I didn't want to hear anything about it. I was done. I was over it. I had already gone through a few conquests, failed miserably, and when I first met her I was just a bitter old lady who had given up.
And then I met Clari. Clari opened my eyes up in ways that I never knew possible. She boosted my self-confidence. She gave me something that I had lost. She is one of my truest loves and I will always adore her. I will always love you, dear Clarisonic.
Jaclyn of Jaclyns Jaunts – Long Time Loving
I have been in love with travel for as long as I can remember. I've tried to remember the exact moment when I knew I was head over heels. Was it the first time I wondered around a new city alone? Or when I boarded a plane for the first time? Or when I was sailing on the Nile River? Maybe it was laying on a beach in Greece.
I have realized that I can't pinpoint it. It snuck up on me and I am now smitten. I think about it all the time. I plot and plan and save. I fantasize about the next time we will meet.
Megan of For All Things Lovely – Give a Girl Shoes
One of my true loves as a fashion blogger is shoes. I typically choose shoes over just about anything else I purchase. There's just something about a fancy pair of shoes that can turn your whole day around and leave you feeling fierce. You've heard the saying, "Give a girl the right shoes and she can conquer the world"? Every bone in my body believes that to be true. The Rock Stud Valentinos are definitely my dream shoes and hopefully, someday, I'll be rocking a pair for Valentine's Day.
Kelsey of Kelsey Bang – Ugly Sweater Love
Jake and I met at an ugly sweater Christmas party. I had just bleached all my hair platinum blonde (but it was still super yellow) and I had a serious mullet! I mean a serious mullet—very short on the sides and long in the back. Yes, I don't know what I was thinking.
Looking back, I am still so surprised Jake approached me at the party. We danced a little, he got my number, and then I ran away chasing after other boys. Jake and I actually never ended up hanging out until we ran into each other three years later. This time my hair wasn't as bad. It was just super long and down to my buns.
Got a love story you want to tell? Share it here and enter for a chance to win a dream vacation and one of many daily prizes in our Valentine's Day sweepstakes!


text:
In the first 15 minutes of the "Battle of the Boulevard" the Lipscomb Bisons scored three goals and cruised to a 6-2 win over the Belmont Bruins Thursday night at the Whitten Soccer Complex on Belmont's campus.
"We did score quickly, but if you go back and look we didn't connect on our first three or four passes," Bisons' coach Charles Morrow said. "Really both teams were like that just because the energy and the emotions of the game can sometimes overtake the game.
"Once both teams settled in we started playing a little bit and strung some passes together. We felt pretty confident coming into the game. We weren't completely satisfied but it was a pretty good game."
It was the third win in a row for the Bisons. Belmont ended its win streak at two games. With four games left in the regular season Morrow still sees areas where his team can improve.
"We still haven't really put together that complete game," Morrow said. "Hopefully, that is something we can work on and get ready for our next games."
Midfielder Joey Chiappetta earned team player of the game honors with two goals on two shot attempts and two assists. They were the first two goals for Chiappetta as a college player.
"It was an unbelievable night for Joey," Morrow said. "He has had some strong games early on, but he was a handful for Belmont."
Also scoring two goals was forward Garrett Pettis.
Rounding out the scoring for the Bisons were midfielder Nick Bibb, who also scored his first collegiate goal; and defenseman Kevin Barbar, another freshman; scoring for the first time this season.
Midfielder Garrett McLaughlin added two assists.
"Garrett and Angel Chairez really aren't in the stats, but they made great decisions and gave great effort," Morrow said. "They clogged up the field so much defensively. And when they got the ball they were simple.
"They were so simple it was beautiful, especially in the second half. They were stringing passes together and keeping the ball moving and helping us keep possession. They directed our offense and put the ball where it needed to be."
Pettis opened the scoring at 7:27. Bibb found the net at 9:46. Barbar rounded out the first half barrage with a corner kick at 14:17. Belmont scored at 28:43 of the first half, but the Bisons scored two quick goals in the second half with Chiappetta getting his first goal of the season at 54:28 and Pettis following with his team-leading sixth goal of the season at 55:53.
Belmont scored again at 72:52, but Chiappetta answered at 77:16 with an unassisted one-timer from outside the box.
The Bisons are 7-6-0, 3-2-0 in the A-Sun. Belmont slipped to 5-8-0, 2-3-0 in the conference.
Written by Mark McGee, Senior Publisher/Director of Media Relations.


text:
Senior Alistair Felton helped Harvard wrap up its non-conference slate with a 5-2 win over St. John's. (Gil Talbot)
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – The No. 20 Harvard men's tennis team (16-1) took down No. 58 St. John's on Sunday, as it defeated the Red Storm, 5-2. Harvard swept double competition while going 4-2 in singles play.
All three Crimson doubles pairings recorded wins in the match as senior Alistair Felton and Casey MacMaster topped Milo Hauk and Ilija Vucic 8-1. Senior Jon Pearlman and sophomore Christo Schultz took down Vasko Mladenov and Stefan Bojic, 8-5. Team "Nguyen", made up of junior Andy Nguyen and freshman Denis Nguyen, completed the doubles sweep after they defeated Matty Najfeld and Valentin Mihal 8-5, to take the doubles point.
In singles action Harvard got production from the No. 2, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 positions. Denis Nguyen defeated Hauk 6-3, 6-2, in the No. 2 position, while freshman Shaun Chaudhuri continued his winning ways, as he upended Bojic, 7-5, 3-6, 6-2, in the No. 4 spot. Freshman Alex Steinroeder downed Kurt Anbarci from the No. 5 position, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2 and freshman Henry Steer pitched in with a win over Mike Lampa in the No. 6 spot, 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. In the No. 1 position Pearlman was edged in a heated battle with Mladenov falling, 6-0, 6-7, 7-5. In the No. 3 spot, Schultz came up short against Vucic by the score of 6-3, 4-6, 6-3.
Harvard will begin conference play next weekend when it travels to Ithaca and New York City, when it takes on Cornell and Columbia on Saturday, Sunday. Both matches are slated for 2 p.m.


text:
I'm not sure if "Proof of Zero" ended well or not. The story, written by David Schwartz, features a detective investigating a missing persons case. Increase Fermin, a playwright noted for her mathematical-inspired plays, has not called her roommate in two days and said roommate believes something is wrong. The police have not been helpful, but Detective Wotojowicz is there to do his thing. Ya know, investigate.
Numbers roll through the story, interrupting the narrative. "...274...", "...68...", and others alternate through "Proof of Zero". I've two thoughts on this. First, W- is somewhat compulsive about counting - so perhaps the numbers is an unexplained counting. Second, and more likely, they are somehow tied into Increase's disappearance. And yet - I'm not sure Schwartz ever gives a completely satisfactory answer to this. Or, he does and I simply did not understand it. This is just as likely.
"Proof of Zero" is a clever story, one which compels readers to try to figure out what is going on. "Proof of Zero" is an interesting story, but one which ultimately did not make a whole lot of sense to me. As such, it was not quite as satisfying as it otherwise could have been. Good, but not good enough.
This is the eighth story from Spicy Slipstream Stories.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
SSS: "Proof of Zero"
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Posted by Joe on Thursday, March 12, 2009
1 comments:
- Books Fall Open said...
I've had reading experiences like that -- where I know the author is trying to do something clever, but it goes way over my head, and I'm just left there blinking, wondering what I missed. It's very frustrating.
- March 12, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE) - November 24, 2009--SanDisk Corporation (Nasdaq:SNDK) today announced that Judy Bruner, Executive Vice-President, Administration & CFO, will present to the investment community attending the NASDAQ OMX 23rd Investor Program in London on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 8:30 am GMT. The session will be webcast and can be accessed live from SanDisk Corporation's Investor Relations website at www.sandisk.com/IR. A replay of the webcast will also be made available.
About SanDisk
SanDisk Corporation is the global leader in flash memory cards, from research, manufacturing and product design to consumer branding and retail distribution. SanDisk's product portfolio includes flash memory cards for mobile phones, digital cameras and camcorders; digital audio/video players; USB flash drives for consumers and the enterprise; embedded memory for mobile devices; and solid state drives for computers. SanDisk is a Silicon Valley-based S&P 500 company, with more than half its sales outside the United States.
|SanDisk Corporation
|Jay Iyer
SOURCE: SanDisk Corporation


text:
07.09.2016 - MiLB Kingsport vs Danville (115/136)
Access to downloads is only available to pre-approved media clients; ALL images must be purchased or licensed, this includes for those depicted and their family. We can not e-mail images or allow downloads for ANY other persons, digital files are not available to the general public.
Filename: MiLB_070916_1354_BW.jpg
Copyright © 2016 - Brian Westerholt / Four Seam Images
Copyright © 2016 - Brian Westerholt / Four Seam Images
MiLB, minors, Minor League Baseball, professional, baseball, men, Appalachian League, Appy, rookie, short season, VA, Virginia, Atlanta Braves, Danville Braves, Kingsport Mets, New York Mets


text:
The Governor has made technology a top priority in government because he recognizes that we cannot provide the best possible service to the citizens of North Carolina if we are held back by outdated IT systems. And when we arrived in Raleigh in January, we couldn�t shy away from some of the largest technology problems facing our state. Since day one, we�ve been focused on the largest IT project in state history � the new Medicaid claims processing system, NCTracks .
Over the past six months, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and our state�s IT professionals have worked with our vendors around the clock, devoting all available financial and intellectual resources to push this project over the finish line. And on July 1, NCTracks finally goes live.
But why should the people of North Carolina care about the launch of this new government computer system? The reason you should care is simple: NCTracks will allow DHHS, an $18 billion department, to operate more efficiently, which will lead to improved quality of healthcare for our residents.
When it goes live, our NCTracks system will be a national leader � it will be the nation�s first Medicaid-based multi-payer system that will help create efficiencies in DHHS outside of just Medicaid. The new NCTracks program will process and pay more than 2 million claims per week to over 70,000 providers who rely on these payments to provide care to the state�s young, elderly, poor, disabled and mentally ill.
Once implemented, NCTracks will help us make more precise payments and decrease the likelihood of fraud and abuse in the state Medicaid program. It will also help improve customer service and efficiency by reducing paperwork for our state�s healthcare providers and making it easier for them to get reimbursed quickly and accurately through a digital submission process.
The Department has invested thousands of hours and hundreds of people�s efforts during the last few months to get to this point. When a recent report from the State Auditor found several technical issues, our team worked to fix them. In fact, recent simulation testing of 1.2 million claims in the new system showed that they were paid successfully and accurately.
To make this transition as smooth as possible, we need the help of North Carolina�s health care providers. Since January, we have had extensive outreach with provider community to tell them about the new system, train them, as well as answer their questions � from in person and online training sessions to communications via newsletters, email and direct mail. But at this time, only a small percentage of providers have taken advantage of training opportunities � which we are told by the federal government is average � but it means that many providers will have questions after the transition.
It is important to set realistic expectations about what is going to happen as we transition to the new system. We know from the experiences of other states that have implemented Medicaid payment platforms that there will be an initial rough patch of 30 to 90 days as providers get used to using the new system. We have set up a call center with additional staff and expanded hours to help with the influx of questions, but providers may experience longer-than normal wait times. We have even cancelled many Fourth of July vacations at DHHS, and we also have people on standby to help with call volume if necessary.
Additionally, an unusually high number of providers may try to submit their claims on July 1, which could result in additional strain being put on the system. We will be monitoring performance on a real time basis and will be making adjustments to stay ahead of the load. And despite thousands of tests being run on the system, we will likely uncover additional changes that need to be made after we go live. In talking to states that have had very successful changeovers, each of them have shared with us that these issues are expected. To be fair, most of the issues were cosmetic in nature in that they didn�t impact the state�s ability to process claims. We will be monitoring the situation from a central command center, and we have a team in place to resolve issues as swiftly as possible.
We�ve offered free training for providers over the past couple of months to help them enroll in and use the new system. For providers who missed the instructor-led training sessions, online courses are available 24/7 to help them prepare for the switch. After the new system goes live, field training representatives around the state will also provide in-person training, if needed. Providers can learn more about training by going to nctracks.nc.gov, or by calling 1-866-844-1113.
Wos is the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary. Cooper is Chief Information Officer for the department.


text:
Sounders FC
Sounders finalize DeAndre Yedlin's transfer to Tottenham
Seattle Sounders FC has completed a deal that will transfer homegrown All-Star right back DeAndre Yedlin to Tottenham Hotspur of the English Premier League.
All three parties on Wednesday reacted positively to the agreement, which will keep Yedlin in a Sounders uniform at least until the end of this Major League Soccer season.
"We thought it was ultimately a good decision for our club, although a difficult one," Seattle general manager Adrian Hanauer said. "... Every club in the world sells players. It's just a matter of weighing the benefits and the drawbacks, and we decided that this was a good decision for us. And by the way, DeAndre clearly wanted this transaction to occur as well."
Hanauer said the deal benefits Seattle now by keeping Yedlin around for the regular season and playoffs. Over the longer term, he said the club will benefit through allocation money.
"It provides us with some cash to reinvest in any aspect of our soccer business that we want," Hanauer said, "whether that is on the youth side that hopefully allows us to develop two or three or four more DeAndre Yedlins, or designated players, or soccer facilities or infrastructure that hopefully will position us for strength going forward."
Yedlin, 21, is a Seattle native who played with the Sounders FC Academy, Sounders U-23 and the University of Akron before signing with the MLS Sounders. He made the All-Star team in both of his pro seasons. This year, he debuted with the U.S. national team and played in three World Cup matches.
Transfer offers started coming in immediately after the World Cup, Hanauer said. He added that a friendly match played last month against Tottenham helped forge the relationship that resulted in the transfer deal completed Wednesday.
"From my family to youth coaches to the Sounders, I am lucky to have such a strong support system," Yedlin said through a Sounders press release. "I'm excited to have the opportunity to play with Spurs in the English Premier League, and I look forward to helping the Sounders win a championship this season."
Once this MLS season ends, Tottenham could bring Yedlin over to join them during their ongoing EPL season allow Yedlin to remain with the Sounders until the start of the 2015-16 EPL season next summer.
"Tottenham is a phenomenal club with phenomenal fans and a great opportunity," said Kasey Keller, who like Yedlin is a Puget Sound native who played for the U.S. national team, Tottenham and the Sounders. "But with any big club — it doesn't matter where you go — you understand that there's a high level of competition for you to earn your spots, and I have complete confidence that Yedlin has the ability to have a long career wherever, if it happens to be Spurs or someplace else. … As (with) any American going to any club, I just hope it's the right situation for them, and they have a long and fruitful career at that club."


text:
Introduction to Sound: Acoustics for the Hearing and Speech Sciences
Singular Publishing Group, 1999 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 316 pages
This powerful text continues with the same fundamental aim as the previous two editions to not present, but to teach the fundamental concepts of acoustics to students in the speech-language and hearing science. In addition to relocating revised practice problems and answers to a newly created Course Notes and Workbook for Introduction to Sound, the third edition also introduces new features. Supplements Course Notes and Workshop for Introduction to Sound 1-56593-980-8 - 176 pages, softcover, 8 1/2 x 11
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
H A P T E R 1 The Nature of Sound Waves
H A P T E R 2 Simple Harmonic Motion
CHAPTER3 Logarithms and Antilogarithms
6 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
acoustic amplitude of vibration amplitude spectrum angle antinodes band-pass filter calculate called center frequency Chapter complex periodic complex wave compliant reactance components compression corresponds cutoff frequency cycle damping dB SPL dB/octave decibels decreases density distance dyne/cm2 elastic system equal Equation equilibrium example filter curve function fundamental frequency harmonic distortion impedance increases input instantaneous amplitudes integer multiples intensity level inversely magnitude mass reactance maximal maximum displacement medium meter molecules move natural frequency octave octave-band level output panel particle displacement pendulum pressure spectrum level problem propagation quency ratio reactance restoring force result sawtooth wave scientific notation simple harmonic simple harmonic motion sine wave sinusoidal sound energy sound intensity sound pressure level sound wave speed of sound square wave standing wave starting phase string surface Table tion tube tuning fork unit of measure velocity vibratory motion voltage watt/m2 waveform wavelength white noise


text:
You can now emulate Windows 7 on your android device with this great application
Please Note: If you have a Motorola Phone with Motoblur please download "Moto Home Fix" by Nightshade Labs to choose the home application.
It's finally here! Windows 7 for Android! You can now emulate Windows 7 on your Android device. This home application can replace the default home application (if desired) and allows you to access anything on your phone through Windows 7 for Android. No other application required! Unlike most home or theme applications that require Launcher Pro or similar apps. This means more memory for you and a quicker interface. This application includes many great features; task bar, start menu, widgets page, and of course the desktop. The task bar includes the main features of your device; the start button, the browser, messaging, dialer, and the launcher. The launcher gives you a list of all installed applications and allows you to pick one to run. The start menu allows you to get quick access to the Market, pictures, music, contacts, email, social networking, and other applications. Windows 7 for Android also includes a great widgets feature. There is an entire window dedicated to widgets. You are no longer limited to the amount of widgets you can have and now you can get even quicker access to your notifications. The desktop of course include a few shortcuts to other applications. Check out the screen shots and the video for a demo!


text:
Export bookmarks to Safari
No one has helped translate this article yet. If you already know how localizing for SUMO works, start translating now. If you want to learn how to translate articles for SUMO, please start here.
You can export your Firefox bookmarks for use in other browsers. This article shows you how to export your Firefox bookmarks and import them into Safari.
Note: This article applies to Mac and Windows. The Safari browser is not currently available for Linux.
Table of Contents
Exporting bookmarks from Firefox
Click the Library button , then click . Scroll to the bottom and click .Click the Bookmarks button and select to open the Library window.
- From the toolbar on the Library window, click
and choose .
- In the Export Bookmarks File window that opens, choose a location to save the file, which is named bookmarks.html by default. The desktop is usually a good spot, but any place that is easy to remember will work.
- Click the button. The Export Bookmarks File window will close.
- Close the Library window.
Your bookmarks are successfully exported from Firefox, to import them into Safari proceed to the next section.
Importing bookmarks into Safari
- Start Safari
- On the menu bar, click on the
menu and choose .
- Find the file you saved from Firefox and click
- Start Safari
- At the top of the Safari window, click on the
menu and choose .
- If you don't see the menu bar, press the Alt key.
- If you don't see the menu bar, press the Alt key.
- Find the file you saved from Firefox and click
- Name the Bookmark folder whatever you would like.
Click on themenu to ensure all of your bookmarks have been successfully imported.


text:
From by UCtelevision:
Robert Levenson, UC Berkeley Department of Psychology, explores the changes in emotion that occur with age. Much of his research focuses on the nature of human emotion, in terms of its physiological manifestations, variations in emotion associated with age, gender, culture, and pathology, and the role emotion plays in interpersonal interactions.
A sample of related Situationist posts:
- The Situation of Smiling
- The Body Has a Mind of its Own
- The Situation of Fear
- Phillippe Golden on Emotions
- Situating Emotion
- Joseph LeDoux on the Neural Situation of Emotion and Memory
- The Interior Situation of Complex Human Feelings
- The Interior Situation of Complex Human Feelings
- Accidentally Us