ࡱ>    $bjbj2\2\ 42 P6_P6_o%  }}1`8D !(4^U-1."S.S.S.B/B/B/5777777$p[}8B/B/B/P01\[}}S.S.p333`1r}S.}S.53B/533fx(Y0XW&2ݠD!0!8:3:YY3: B/B/3B/B/B/B/B/[[3B/B/B/B/B/B/B/:B/B/B/B/B/B/B/B/B/ - C: Criminal Procedure Outline  4Th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Two Clauses Reasonableness Clause: Right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . Against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated Warrant Clause: And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation TEST: Unreasonable search and seizures, identified by: Property Analysis (Florida v. Jardines) Person, houses, papers, and effects Privacy Analysis (Katz v. United States) Subjective test: manifested expectation of privacy Objective test: society willing to recognize All other searches and seizures are unprotected by the Fourth Amendment Open fields, Knowingly Exposed Three considerations for Objective Reasonableness Place of surveillance Home, open field, curtilage Intrusiveness of surveillance Sensory enhancements, exposure to public, assumption of risk Available to senses theories Magnification Otherwise detectable movements, events, or entities Exposure / out in public domain theories Consent Assumption of risk Making information available to third parties Object of search (what surveillance can turn up) Personal dignity, Dog sniff When looking at police activity the first question is (1) whether the activity is regulated by the 4th Amendment (search & seizures), if not, then not worried about it and the activity is lawful and the evidence cannot be excluded at trial under the 4th amendment. (2) If the conduct is regulated by the 4th amendment (search and seizure), the exclusion rule may apply. Therefore, have to ask whether it intrudes upon a property or privacy right. If intrudes upon a property or privacy right, it is excluded from evidence If it is a reasonable search or seizure, it is lawful and allowed.  Doesnt say privacy, but does say security and "persons, houses, papers, and effects" which allow the inference that privacy follows Initially the constitution only applied to the federal government, and there was no remedy for such a violation. Then in 1914 Weeks v. U.S., held that exclusion of evidence is the principal remedy for fourth amendment violations, but still only applies by the states. In 1949 Wolf v. Colorado, held that the 4th Amendment applies to all the states. Before 1961, States treat a 4th Amendment violation remedy as an evidence law issue, which typically states that it is admissible. But, to regulate the Police for violating 4th Amendment to obtain evidence, is to sue them in Tort (e.g., trespass) General Background Do the rules of criminal procedure protect the public or the police? Themes to keep in mind How will formal commands of the law be implemented in the real world? What is the importance of historical context? What are the implications of gender, class, and racial discrim (Lyons) We should think about: How we use criminal procedure to regulate the police. Think of regulation as achieving two ambitions (basically creates incentives and decentives): Encourage good policing and practice AND Deter bad policing and practice (could be as to whole police dpt or indiv cops) Also, std way about thinking of policing is through encounters between cop and civilian 4th amm focuses on correcting the things that go wrong between these two Two Views on the Police Hard Line conservativism Give cops more discretion/leeway to protect our neighborhoods View ( predatory strangers street crimes victimize citizens and destroys communities Marxism Give cops less discretion/leeway in order to protect individuals (suspects) from cops skewed version of who to go after etc. Protect the individual. View ( the poor commit predatory crimes to survive, the rich commit financial crimes which are ignored Remedies: Generally-Other Remedies What form of relief best compensates victims of illegal searches and arrests? What remedy best deters violations? And importantly, what remedy or remedies pose the least danger of stifling good police work? Damages Requires violation of a clear law or policy Ability of constitution to give specific standards is difficult because the decision makers implementing the rules, policies, or procedures provided by the policy maker is subject to varying and rapidly developing factual scenarios that make it difficult to apply the rule appropriately. Therefore, the subordinate official ends up using their discretion, not simply follow ministerial guidelines. But then it is a poorly written rule Problems are: Notice: lack of clear guidance from vague constitutional provisions Rapidly changing circumstances: vests discretion in official at point of implementation Originally: no immunity for constitutional violations Government officials: superior vicariously liable for unconstitutional acts of inferior Discretionary function immunity Discretionary act: Policy-maker immune where exercise of discretion required and act is reasonable though later found unconstitutional Ministerial act Where officials role is only to implement commands of superior, liability for constitutional violations Monell v. Dept of Socl Servs. (1978): Who are you going to sue for damages? Municipality has deep pockets Mayor in their representative capacity Police officer who engaged in illegal activity Municipal liability must be founded upon custom or policy No liability if no policy Policy may be formal or informal May be single act of authorized decision-maker (Pembaur v. City of Cincinnatti (1986)) But failure-to-train case requires more than a single act (City of Canton v. Harris (1989); Connick v. Thompson (2011)) Unconstitutional searches and seizures may give rise to state tort claims, such as false arrest or trespass, or to claims under state constitutions. 42 U.S.C. section 1983 gives plaintiffs a cause of action in federal or state court when their federal constitutional rights have been violated by persons acting under color of state law. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) recognized a parallel federal common law claim against federal officials Federal Tort Claim Act makes federal government liable for specified torts of its law enforcement officers Cops usually indemnified by dpt so doesnt come out of the indivs pocket This remedies a PAST wrong, so doesnt really correct policing Also, there is a lot of immunity for cops in diff stuff Indiv cops protected by qualified immunity Even municipal officers can sometimes get immunity State and its officers have immunity under 11th amm Con to such proceedings: is that most jurors are unsympathetic to such plaintiffs against the government to impose liability on the Gov't and award may be nominal Immunity doctrines for certain governmental entities (unless waived) However, local governments are liable under 1983 only if the relevant constitutional violation was caused by an official policy or custom. Monel v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) Qualified immunity for individual officials (i.e., police officers) if sued for damages Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), Court ruled that damages are available against a police officer who has violated the Fourth Amendment only when he has behaved with something akin to gross negligence -- when the governing law and its application to the circumstances facing the officer are clear, and he has nevertheless disregarded them. Not just any conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment entails personal liability Instead, the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer could understand that their conduct violates the right The inquiry is an objective one So even if the officer subjectively recognizes they are violating a right, that does not matter Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)-->officers can have reasonable, but mistaken, beliefs as to the facts establishing the existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances . . . And in those situations courts will not hold that they have violated the Constitution. Yet, even if a court were to hold that officer violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable, warrantless search, Anderson still operates to grant officers immunity for reasonable mistakes as to the legality of their actions. Injunctions Damages are backward looking. Injunctions help prevent future harm Some questionable police practices, especially those involving the use of force, are a part of the officers' training and may well be legitimate in some circumstances but excessive or unreasonable in other settings Section 14141 allows DOJ to bring civil suit against police dpts. Issue 70,000 dpts and one DOJ. Not enough man power. Also, DOJ dont usually want to bring these lawsuits. Standard Civil Rights Style Lawsuit (Injunction) City of Los Angeles v. Lyons tried this tactic but STILL did not work. Would be a good way to handle it though. But ct here precludes injunctive relief as a vehicle for police reform (see more of Lyons below) Courts have the power to enjoin future constitutional violations, but significant barriers Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)--> man sued city and police officers because police had, without justification, used a chokehold on him during an arrest. SCOTUS ruled that Defendant/respondent, had no standing for injunctive relief (i.e., no actual case or controversy) because no grounds to believe that this particular claimant would be subjected to a future chokehold. Marshall, dissent: Dist. Courts should be mindful that federal court intervention into the daily operations of a police dept is undesireable and to be avoided whenever possible, the injunctive relief requested there--simply a prohibition on the use of chokeholds absent the threat of deadly force -- "does not implicate the federalism concerns" that arise when a federal court undertakes to supervise the running of a police department. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (Justice White) Remedy, Injunctive Relief, Police Practice/Procedure Procedural Posture: In SCOTUS. Ruled on Motion of Judgment on the Pleadings (can have disputed issues of material facts but ruled on the law/issue of substantive controversy--summary judgement is no disputed material fact and ruled on the application of the law). Basically, there is no trial. Issue: Can Lyons obtain injunctive relief against the polices implementation of the chokehold?--> No, lacks standing. Facts: Lyons was stopped by the police because of a broken taillight and told to get out of the car, spread his legs and put his hands on his head. Complies, but at one point takes his hands off of his head because he complains that his ring on his ring finger is digging into his scalp. Upon complaining, he was then put into a chokehold until unconsciousness(caused him to defecate/urinate on self and spat up blood. Was not arrested, only received a ticket. Police Policy use chokehold when: bodily attack or resistance to arrest. So was failure to keep hands on head = bodily attack Is complaining = resistance? (even though no arrest, just ticket) Def of resistance imp here but the ct never explores this Ct assumes resistance is physical threat BUT dissent says it is backchat Ct simply rejects the idea that LAPD allows chokeholds where the civilian does NOT resist. Police policy is to put individual into a chokehold if they feel (subjective) that the individual is or will attack the police officer or resist. **but objectively (reasonable person) is that the case here? Is objective the policy? What is resistance? Verbal or physical? If physical, how much physical resistance should there be? At the time Lyon's was choked, the chokehold was not considered "deadly force" but during the trial the chokehold was elevated to "deadly force." Analysis: Didn't look at the policy or procedure but Lyon's standing to sue for injunctive relief Standing requires there be an "actual case or controversy." Meaning that the Pf has a personal stake in the litigation; some injury in fact that has been caused by the challenged conduct and that can be remedied by a judicial decree. The proposed the injunction was to stop the chokeholds and change the policy to only allow chokeholds when there is imminent threat of physical harm. But, that required Lyons to show there is likelihood that Lyons would be choked again in the future -- likelihood/potential of future injury as a result of the same policy or procedure Court thinks that it is highly improbable that Lyons would get stopped again and subjected to the chokehold because it is unlikely that Lyons would be arrested again/stopped again/break the law Court looks to and relies on O'Shea v. Littleton & Rizzle v. Goode Rizzle v. Goode court said that in order to get injunctive relief you have to show it is a departmental policy, not just a few small apples. Otherwise, you can only get injunctive relief against a few officers, not the department as a whole Court thinks the past statistics and the future application of the chokehold to Lyons is too attenuated to merit standing for injunctive relief. Hold Lyons lacks standing to sue for inj to preclude LAPD from chokeholdin Held that there is not a real or immed threat of repetition of this injury Too many other factors at play to show that Lyon will suffer chokehold again he would have to break law, get pulled over, and be choked = chances of that are too remote/speculative ALSO it is in LYONS control as to whether it happens again Note: ct presumes that he will not break the law again BUT dissent argues that this was an investigatory stop (at 2am, taillight, black, etc) so the cops were ALREADY on edge, thus if he were to be stopped again b/c of race then it is NOT unlikely that this would happen again. COPS decide who to pull over with investigatory stops and are already on edge when they do Dissent (Justice Marshall): The police use this chokehold, it is the most used physical restraint, and it is more often used against people of color than anyone else. This is not an individual problem, but a structural problem regarding training and informal/formal LAPD policies. This was an investigatory stop Diff Stops Regular stop = short, get citation and thats it Investigatory stop = longer stops where cops are trying to get you to stay to do search or get your consent Investigatory stops = predom used against blacks Which also coincides with dissents argue that this is a lot to do with race b/c 12/16 chocked deaths in last 5 years were all black. Usually use excuse to stop like 5 miles over speed limit or broken taillight When cops make these stops, they are already making the assumption that this is a criminal so they will be more uneasy/on edge with things like backchat and will see it sign of resistance MJRTY Argues it is not a structural, but an individual problem, but that is not necessarily the case. This problem is STRUCTURAL, not individual Thus, should allow inj to prevent this from happening again to Lyons AND to get cops to change POLICIES! Criminal Prosecution Some violations of the Fourth Amendment can lead to criminal prosecution of the police officer (see list of statutes on page 341 for reference) Criminal Prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 242: willful violation of an individuals constitutional rights Hard to get prosecutor to bring in the first place b/c they rely on the cops to bring them cases AND prosecutors are elected so want to look tough on crime. Cops have ready defenses (like saw them reach for gun so force was re) so hard for jury to convict the cop especially when other person there is a criminal Administrative and Political Remedies Police regulation and discipline are generally directed at deterring police misconduct rather than compensating victims. Similarly police training aims at avoiding Fourth Amendment violations before they occur. "Citizen review" boards have been created due to local agitation, to monitor police These citizen boards share responsibility with police for the review of complaints brought against individual police officers. Yet, most of these review boards focus on the performance of individual officers and not on acceptability of particular policing practices within local neighborhoods. Political checks on the cops are light Sure there are civilian review boards but they have not been super aggressive and not clear how much they actually oversee Remedies: Exclusionary Rule All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in state and federal court. Generally Doesnt say privacy, but does say security and "persons, houses, papers, and effects" which allow the inference that privacy follows Initially the constitution only applied to the federal government, and there was no remedy for such a violation. Then in 1914 Weeks v. U.S., held that exclusion of evidence is the principal remedy for fourth amendment violations, but still only applies by the states. In 1949 Wolf v. Colorado, held that the 4th Amendment applies to all the states. Before 1961, States treat a 4th Amendment violation remedy as an evidence law issue, which typically states that it is admissible. But, to regulate the Police for violating 4th Amendment to obtain evidence, is to sue them in Tort (e.g., trespass) 4th amendment protects the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police and exclusionary rule deters unreasonable police behavior Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Clark): Mapp expands the power of the federal gov't by applying the 4th Amendment as a code of criminal procedure to States that don't have it, and apply the Jurisprudence of the 4th Amendment to the States Facts: Police forced themselves into Mapps home (looking for bomb making materials) and found pornography in her possession, for which she was arrested for. Police attempted entry, PF called attorney and said that she refused to allow them to enter without a executed warrant. Police return and forced entry, Mapp asked to see the warrant, a piece of paper was presented (but unclear if it was a warrant) the piece of paper was taken by Mapp and police wrastled her to obtain the piece of paper. Mapp resisted, and police used force (twisted her arm until she said it was hurting, and reached inside blouse to obtain the "warrant"). Trial court did not think this was sufficiently brutal or offensive to be considered a violation (Due Process clause violation). Police searched entire house and found porn Analysis: Court goes through the history of the 4th amendment and discovered that a large # of states that found that other alternatives to Exclusionary Rule have not worked, and CAL thinks it does. So it is justified in having the Exclusionary Rule apply. Worried about police lawlessness (pg. 328) and if no way to regulate the Police then the Police can pick and choose when they can abide by the constitution. Cardozo: criminal is to go free if the constable blunders. But Clark says this is the cost that society must pay, Clark is worried more about lawlessness and the procedures in place. Whereas Cardozo is really worried about the outcome Holding: The Fourth Amendment applies to the states and that includes the remedy of the exclusionary rule (evidentiary exclusion), as incorporated through the 14th amendment. Concurring: Black:4th amendments ban on against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the 5th amendments ban against compelled sel-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule. This longstanding relationship between 4th and 5th amendment was justified in Boyd. Boyd, although not express in the Constitution, is a historically sound basis for this rule. Douglas: Lawless entry, only other remedy if exclusion is not permitted is trespass, which is an illusory remedy. Without exclusionary remedy applied to the States, no protection against the untrammeled power to invade ones home and seize ones person. Dissent (Harlan): State should set their own remedy and there is no constitutional remedy (it is not written in there). Federalist concerns and whether States are Constitutionally free to follow it or not as they may themselves determine. Does not believe the 14th amendment empower this court to mould state remedies effectuating the right to freedom from arbitrary intrusion by the police. The main prob ct faced here was explaining why should incorporate remedy as well as right 4 arguments discussed: (1) Times have changed since Wolf and need exclusionary remedy more NOW. Changes include: In Wolf stated that vio of rights was rare, now that is not the case In Wolf argued violations are not serious, now after the civil rights mvmt we see that that is not true. Hold ( Need to centralize this matter Ct is saying WE will decide crim procedure b/c states have failed Centralized crim procedure means applies to fed AND states. Ct then used the constitution as the code of criminal procedure and constitutionalized the remedy (2) Balancing Test Cardozo failed to ID correct harms = changed the tilt. The balance: Good of community v. right of the individual person Or put another way ( danger of freeing criminals v. danger of unlawful police action (police blunder) IN Defore case, Cardozo balanced it so as it tilts to the left. Blunder means tort. So Cardozo saw unlawful police action as a tort, just mere negligence. Made it easy to tilt to the left so as to protect the public and worry about blundering cops in training. Here, the ct recalibrates the balance to tilt to the right. Ct held that Cardozo was looking at the wrong harm. The real harm is that the unlawful police action undermines the imperative of judicial integrity. Ex Using evid that was gathered unconsti = undermines Prosecutors incentivized to collude with feds and give evid to states b/c evid can get in since no remedy = undermines (Why argue for centralization) Nothing can destroy a gvt more quickly than not abiding by OWN laws. This harm def outweighs freeing criminals. This was one of the MAIN reasons for inputting the exclusionary rule BUT then deterrence reasoning below became the main reason. (3) Exclusionary remedy deters bad policing Exclusionary rule DETERS lawless policing and PROMOTES law-guided police conduct. This becomes the MAIN reason to input exclusion rule (4) Conceptual nexus between remedy of exclusion and brutish evid gathering If harm is brutish evid gathering by cops then the remedy should be to exclude that evid. Mapps central problem is to explain the relation between right and remedy Deterence Exclusion deters police from wrongdoing Police are engaged in the business of investigating, prosecuting, and convicting criminals Exclusion will make convicting criminals harder So exclusion will deter police from wrongdoing Judicial Integrity Trials are conducted using evidence that is gathered according to the rule of law Courts would participate in wrongdoing if they permitted the use of illegally gathered evidence at trial Legal officials must follow the law Due process prohibits brutish extortion of evidence (Allen 327) If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. (Allen 328) Scope of Exclusionary RuleGood Faith Exception Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Strange Fruit: New forms of Attenuation Privacy and Property Pure Property Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (Bradley): Boyd is a property case, categorically protecting a narrow zone of personal property. Boyd is getting referenced increasingly in new court. It's understanding of property, is different than the Current courts understanding of propertyDouglas loves Boyd because there is a zone of privacy that the government can never enter/do to you Facts: Boyd was illegally importing and not reporting the importing of Plated Glass. . Subpoena his invoices b/c want to know the market value of the plate glass to accurately assess his lia .During this time, had a statute that allowed this type of warrant and if D does not give it then it is taken as a confession Holding: Gov't can get the illegally imported Plated glass in the public, but couldnt get his private papers that establish the extent of his operations. His papers are inviable and state has no right to his papers. The Police/Court cannot subpoena you to testify and produce your papers it is in effect self-incrimination Analysis: 4th Amendment protects Property and 5th Amendment protects testimony, and the two work in tandem to protect the individual and the 5th Amendment allows an exclusionary rule, which supports such a rule for the 4th amendment because the two work together. Cannot subpoena you and get you to produce your papers because it is, in essence, self-incrimination and similar to rummaging. If goods you have are stolen, you have no property right to them. The gov't has an equal right to them as does the original/lawful owner. But papers and goods in the lawful possession of the individual, despite having information of unlawfulness, is different than stolen property Thus, gvt MAY search for (1) stolen goods and Ct held that thief NEVER has prop interest in goods they steal so gvt ALWAYS has superior interest for this stuff (2) stuff that the gvt has a property interest in Looked at the 4th amm and pointed to persons, houses, papers, and effects these are all protected property of the individual Held ( private book/papers of the market value = protected by 4th amm against unre s/s because the individual has a superior property interest than the gvt Ex) Diary, blogs, tweets You have property interest in your private writings that is superior to the gvts interest. However, if start selling your diary and dont pay sales tax NOW state has property interest in that. Takeaways 2 things: Conjunction of 4th and 5th amm Privacy is defined by property rights of the D Under Boyd the 4th amm is read narrowly, which: Sub limits the states ability to s/s since the state can ONLY s/s stuff that it has a prop interest in. If state s/s prop that has no prop interest in = mere evid Thus, can s/s stuff they have interest in orinstrumentalities or fruits of crime or contraband but NOT mere evid But sub increases the indivs categorical ability to exclude state from obtaining private prop that the indiv has a superior interest in. Thus, state searches of any and all personal prop shall ALWAYS be unreasonable under Boyd HUGE! all you have to show is superior interest! Powerful vision of civilians rights why Boyd is a fav of left From Property to Privacy Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (Brennan): Schmerber was drunk drivin and caused an accident. Went to the hospital. There, cops got a blood test from Schmerber without a warrant. Results showed drunk, arrested him for DUI. 4th amm protects against unre s/s of PERSONS Blood test = forcin you to give up part of body so def seems like the 4th amm vio This is the first major attack on Boyd in the 4th amm realm This case goes opposite to Boyd and undermines indiv rights under the 4th amm Ct separates 4th and 5th amm For vio of the 5th amm you have to prove all of the following : Compelled Testimonial Self-incrimination Boyd argued that 4th amm involving s/s is a way to force someone to give up info about themselves = auto compelled testimonial that self-incriminates (vio of 5th) Maj says that taking your blood for blood test is non-testimonial b/c it is non-communicative since there is no intent to SAY anything. Would hold the same if it were fingerprints. Thus not all three elements met = no vio of 5th amm BUT, maybe 4th amm vio Thus the difference: Incriminating testimony is the subject of the 5th amm Physical evidence is the subject of the 4th amm Brennan thinks the 5th amendment only applies to testimony (blood does not speak) But 4th Amendment protects such unlawful withdrawing of bloods because it protects you in your person. But there is no absolute zone of privacy, but a process. So long as there is probable cause, and the process is not unreasonable, the state can do it (i.e., take blood without consent of criminal if probable cause and existence of warrant or exigent circumstances). The "overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the state." Does it vio 4th amm? Ct held that yes it is a search b/c invades someones person BUT the 4th amm says reasonable intrusion is allowed and it gives a procedure to invade in a reasonable way: (1) PC and (2) produce a warrant If follow the procedure then you can s/s peoples persons, houses, papers, and effects Thus, ct held that there is NO categorical privacy space that gvt is precluded from Rejecting Boyd! Boyd took out entire area from possible picture but now saying that CAN get into that area if do the proper procedure However, here issue is that there is no warrant BUT ct held that there is an exception to the warrant req exigent cir of an emergency case Here, this qualifies as an emergency b/c possible destruction of evid if wait (alcohol can go away in blood level) Hold ( this did not vio 4th amm b/c even though it was a search, it was re b/c PC and an exception to warrant applied Takeaway 4th amm = not a categorical zoning of personal property (Boyd) but just protects against unjustified and unreasonable gvt intrustions Reaonable means follow the right process dictated in the 4th amm: PC + warrant PC + exception to warrant And notion of PRIVACY protects pple from unjustified, unreasonable gvt intrusions Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (Brennan): Discarded discarded the use of property interests to define searches and seizures The Court shifts emphasis from privacy as property to privacy as the right to be let alone Ct here stated that 4th amm is the protection of privacy, not property Held that 4th the prop analysis does not ID privacy interests accurately Shifts idea from privacy as prop to privacy as the right to be let alone Thus, after this case, looks like the property analysis is DEAD Held that the 4th amm does NOT distinguish between mere evid and instruments or fruits of crime or contraband b/c s/s of EITHER of these types of things could be equally invasive Thus here the ct makes the following rejections: Prop rights do not track privacy rights And prop rights are NOT the foundation of the 4th amm The 4th amms role is to protect privacy from unre invasions by the gvt Dissent (Douglas): two zone of privacy theory:Outer zone: must have a process in place before you can get into the outer zone, which has only certain things, Inner-zone: there are certain things that the Police cannot get into by raid, by the legislators through laws, or by magistrates through the issuance of warrants Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 54-60 (1967) (Clark): Berger permits warranted intrusions into private spaces. Rejects Boyds view that some spaces are absolutely protected from government surveillance. Recognizes limited (reasonable) state power to engage in electronic surveillance. Permits properly specified intrusion into private and personal conversations. So implicitly rejects Boyds idea that there is an inviolable zone of privacy from which the state may always be excluded Three closely related business: Junk Yards, Mines, Drug FACTORS? Privacy and PropertyMeaning of Searches Two procections (1) Property Analysis and (2) Privacy Analysis. Property Analysiscustom vs. commonlaw. Privacy analysis--There is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "'reasonable.'" The Fourth Amendment limits searches and seizures as a means of collecting evidence Since 1967, Privacy identifies the public interest in freedom from (unreasonable) evidence collection Since 2012, property interests have also defined the public interest in freedom from state interference Public searches are unprotected by the 4th Amendment and so are automatically lawful They do not require a warrants or the exclusion of evidence Only searches of private interests are covered by the Fourth Amendment They generally require the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching The constitution protects only those things and places that a person seeks to preserve as private Katz v. United States (1967) (J. Stewart) 4th Amendment, Meaning of "Search", Relationship between Privacy and Property, Electronic Communication, Diverge from pure tangible property Issue: Was the electronic recording of the telephone conversation in the telephone booth a "search and seizure" under the 4th Amendment? If it was, was the electronic surveillance conducted in a Constitutionally permissible way? Facts: Convicted of transmitting wagering information in violation of federal statute At trial, Government was permitted to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed calls, over the objection of Petitioner. States Argue: There was no physical invasion here, just listening to his voice with mic outside the booth ( Ct Rejects D Argue: He has a re expectation of privacy in the phone booth b/c he SHUT the door so that anyone standing outside would not be able to easily hear. First, ct nailed it in further by rejecting the Trespass Doctrine (that 4th amm is about prop interests) by referencing Warden Held that prop interests are NO LONGER consti protected under the 4th amm But then left with the question with what IS protected under the 4th amm Analysis: Issue #1 Fourth Amendment is not a general constitutional "right to privacy," but only protects against certain Government intrusions which may protect privacy, but privacy is not all. General privacy is not protected by the federal government, but by the states. Although the phone booth is glass, and individuals can see whom is in it, the phone booth contains a door and when someone closes it, they expect privacy and may rely on the protections of the Fourth Amendment. For "[o]ne who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters in to the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication. Court rejected the Government's argument that the 4th amendment only protected searches and seizures of actual property, and stated that "we have expressly held that the Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements, overheard without any 'technical trespass under . . . Local property law.'" Issue #2 Although the Government's actions were narrowly tailored and precise enough to only obtain information from their subject, the fact is that "this restraint was imposed by the agents themselves, not by a judicial officer." They were acting outside the check of the court The purpose of obtaining a judge's approval is to ensure a check of power between the police and the citizens Rule: Because a device does not "penetrate" the property of the individual, does not have constitutional significance when determining whether there was a 4th amendment violation. In the absence of a judicial safeguard approving the search warrant and monitoring the police activity, there has never been a sustained search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end. Searches without warrants are unlawful despite the fact that they show probable cause because the Constitution requires, the deliberate, impartial judgement of a judicial officer be "interposed between the citizen and the police." Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment--outside a few specially defined exceptions, not occurring here. Holding: (1) Government's action of listening to and recording the petitioner's words "violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth" and thus is a "search and seizure" under the 4th Amendment (2) Electronic surveillance of a telephone booth requires the police officer to obtain a search warrant from an approved magistrate judge. Since the police officers failed to do so, their search and seizure of the telephone conversation violated the 4th Amendment. Thus, petitioner's conviction was reversed. Concurrence: HARLAN (very important, Miller says his analysis becomes law): TEST: Understanding of the rule is that "there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "'reasonable.'" Subjective and objective test. (subjective):Only a right to privacy as actually manifested based on the target of the search. Its not JUST that you seek to keep stuff private (sufficient under Maj view), but that you actually keep stuff private You must manifest your expectation of privacy What a person knowingly exposes to the public is NOT private. Person must seek to preserve it as private and be successful at it Did agree with this part of the majority Harlans concurrence talks in terms of OUTCOMES, not conduct. Ex) you go to close window but dont close it fully. Even though you SOUGHT to keep privacy, you FAILED to do so b/c I can see through it. = no protection Thus, this is about success Req FULL secrecy, anything else = NOT meet prong thus not afforded right to privacy Ex) If dont keep cops from seeing then ok for them to look (objective): Expectations that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable" Empirical understanding and a normative understanding Normative--raises worry that people dont like developing constitutionalism AND that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective) Is your expectation of privacy re? ( To answer this, one factor to look at is WHERE hiding it b/c certain places afford more protection than others [where property comes in] Zones of Privacy After Katz ( The expectation of privacy is less re the greater distance you are from home Home ( DEF get 4th amm protection b/c expectation of privacy is DEF re here. WHOLE home is automatically private! Where get MOST privacy Curtilage ( Usually expectation of privacy re here too Area surrounding home How do you know if it constitutes curtilage? ( Four Curtilage Factors (Dunn Case) Proximity to the home Inclusion within an enclosure surrounding the home The uses to which the area is put Protection from observation by a passersby. Where get LOTS of privacy Open Fields ( NO 4th amm protection b/c expectation of privacy here is unreasonable. This is true even if the open fields is part of your property Cops can go wander around this area, no protection Where get NO privacy Thus, Oliver Case tells us that home v. open fields = bright line rule. Cops will not have to guess whether they can search around in an open field. Ex) Leave booth and walk out in public and in order for no one to hear you, you whisper. So meets prong 1 (manifest expectation of privacy) BUT still no right to privacy that is protected by 4th amm b/c in open field = fail prong 2 (obj test). Conversations in open not protected from being overheard because there is no expectation of privacy Key fact here is that the booth is temporarily private place whose "momentary occupants' expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable." "for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion." Dissent (BLACK): The court's reading of the Constitution does not comport with its actual language and should not rewrite it to "bring it into harmony with the times" and thus reach a result that many people believe to be desirable The Fourth Amendment protects searches and seizures of tangible things. "A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized." Wiretapping is a form of eavesdropping which is an historical method which at common law is a nuisance. The framers were aware of this practice, yet did not mention it in the constitution. Previous cases upheld the constitutionality of eavesdropping How is Harlans view diff from Maj view? Maj said 4th amm protects people, not places. Harlan states that places AFFORD certain protections to the people so that where you are affects the reasonableness of your expectation of privacy Thus, protection of people THROUGH places THUS big Takeaway If something falls WITHIN the 4th amm then that means it considered a search or seizure and you have 4th amm protection so cops need PC + Warrant to make it re. BUT if falls OUTSIDE the 4th amm then it is NOT considered a search or seizure and police can s/s as they please. How to know what falls WITHIN and OUTSIDE? ( Katz tells us that it all depends on whether or not you have a right to privacy Contours of 4th amm are charted by your right to privacy. We know whether you have right to privacy by looking at if meet two prong test Thus, the Katz Test tells us what is privacy (4th amm protection) and what is not private (no 4th amm protection) Ex) If cops are in open field = never going to meet 2 prong test (b/c will fail prong 2) so you have no right to privacy here = not 4th amm protections here. This applies to ALL s/s (whether tangible or something like eavesdropping) Curtilage: U.S. v. Dunn: Curtilage presents expectation of privacy The area within the curtilage is identified by: Proximity to the home Inclusion within an enclosure surrounding the home The uses to which the area is put Protection from observation by passerby Overflight Cases Reasonableness is determined by the legitimacy and the intrusiveness of the search. Reasonable expectation of privacy in the home, but not in the open fields. But there are various zones of privacy, (1) home (most private )(2) curtilage (higher privacy) or (3) open fields (no privacy). This is a bright line test, but curtilage brings an expectation of privacy question. Curtilage is identified by the (a) proximity to the home, (b) inclusion within an enclosure surrounding the home, (c) the uses to which area is put, (d) protection from observation from passersby. Is the place form which overve objects open to the public Test=Probability or legality/legitimacy? Intrusiveness of Surveillance Available to senses theories Magnification Otherwise detectable movements, events, or entities Exposure / out in public domain theories Consent Assumption of risk Making information available to third parties Personal dignity as limitation on informational secrecy Basics These cases push on the second prong (objectively reasonable) as to curtilage AND what does reasonable really mean? Usually there is a re expectation of privacy with the curtilage, but sometimes one can peer into the curtilage. Ex) D put a fence up but if the house is right next to a hill and someone can go up hill and look over fence, then no re expectation of privacy So with that being the case, there is a concern for not just peering over but applying more intrusive searches when using sensory enhancing devices like: binoculars, search lights, drones, helicopters, drug sniffing dogs, etc. In these cases asking: if cops fly OVER curtilage to search.is such a search too intrusive to be considered reasonable so that D still has re expectation of privacy from that. Or is it NOT too intrusive, and thus legitimate so this type of search is reasonable and, thus, D have no re expectation of privacy from that? The three diff stds as to how to balance objectively reasonableness v. intrusiveness [sliding scale] Empirical possibility of public access to surveillance place or tech Justifies highly intrusive searches b/c calls them reasonable as long as it is POSSIBLE that public COULD be in the same place as cops If ONE PERSON of the public could do it then cops can too = super broad Customary frequency of public access to surveillance place or tech Justifies moderately intrusive searches b/c calls them reasonable as long as cops are somewhere that public IS and doing what the public IS doing. Not only ONE person, must be more than that. Normative proprietary of public access to surveillance place or tech Justifies searches b/c calls them reasonable as long as cops are somewhere that the public OUGHT to be The scope of reasonableness so as not being intrusive gets broader as go from Normative to Empirical Normative offers MOST protection on privacy and Empirical offers the least The reasonableness expectation to be protected from intrusiveness decreases as go up the scale Ex) Looking into window POSSIBLE that public COULD look in ( under this std, cops can do it May be frequent/customary that public does this ( under this std, cops might be able to do it (can argue that can) Normatively, public OUGHT NOT to do this ( under this std, cops should not be able to do it Approach for Prong 2 Place Where hiding things and is it re to expect privacy there? House? Curtilage? Open Field? Def re to expect privacy in home, usually re to expect privacy in curtilage, not re to expect privacy in open field How intrusive is the search? This is where the standards (empirical, customary, normative) come into play each side argues a std and the ct has to decide which to apply. The state usually argues the one that will most likely get the s/s okayed. Ex) If it is a highly intrusive search then state will argue to have an empirical analysis and would not want the ct to select the normative std b/c it is unforgiving. If the answer to place question is home well ( Higher expectation of privacy the closer you are to home so that even minimally intrusive searches are frowned upon near home Thus, ct will likely use the harsher, Normative std Florida v. Riley (1989) (J. White) (plurality)4th Amendment, Meaning of "Search", Relationship between Privacy and Property, Extension to State, Public navigable airspace Issue: Can the government surveil a property that is partially enclosed by employing the means of a helicopter? Facts: Two sides of the greenhouse were enclosed, the other two ere not, but the contents were obscured from view because of trees, shrubs and the mobile home, 10% of the roof was missing, some of it was partially translucent others opaque Officer got tip about marijuana field, couldnt see it from the road so got a helicopter and flew over the greenhouse from 400 ft which from the naked eye could see the marijuana From this observation a warrant was obtained, the marijuana was seized, and individual was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of Florida law. Analysis: Court relied on California v. Ciraolo (1986) which held the surveillance of a house by an officer with a fixed wing aircraft at 1000 ft altitude that allowed the officer to see with the naked eye marijuana was being grown, is not a violation of the 4th amendment because in an age of public air-ways the observation with the naked eye at that altiude could be made by anyone and is not protected--even though the plants could not be seen from the streets and the yard was part of the curtilage of the property. The helicopter was flying at 400 ft and analysis may have been different if flying the helicopter at that limit was contrary to law or regulation, but officer complied with all commercial laws and thus any member of the public flying a helicopter in the area could have made that observation. Rule: If a police officer uses a commercial flying craft in accordance with the requisite laws and regulations prescribed to the general public, and using that aircraft at sufficient altitude makes an observation with the naked eye that the individual being surveilled is violating the law, that is not a fourth amendment violation because any member of the public could have made that observation if they were flying in the area. Factors: Complying with commercial aircraft law Is flying the device sufficiently rare in those parts Did the flying device interfere with respondents normal use of the individuals property or curtilage Holding: No fourth amendment violation, because the property was subject to viewing from the air and the police employed a technique that normal citizens may have done and observed the behavior Concurrence: O'Connor State bears the burden to prove "whether the helicopter was in the public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity that Riley's expectation of privacy from aerial observation was no 'one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." ' " Need more Dissent: Brennan (joined by Marshall and Stevens) The police officer's vantage point was afforded to him by the helicopter, a piece of machinery very few individuals have the privilege of obtaining for such an activity Burden of proof of determining the regularity of flight patterns over the area and type of craft is on the State because they have the information Drug Sniffing Florida v. Jardines (2013) (J. Scalia) (plurality)4th Amendment, Meaning of "Search", Relationship between Privacy and Property, Extension to State, Resurgence of Property Issue: Is using a drug sniffing dog on homeowner's porch a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Facts: Detective obtained tip of illegal marijuana growth in Defendant's home. DEA and Police sent joint surveillance to Defendant's home Detective 1 approached Defendant's home with Detective 2, a trained canine handler, and his drug sniffing dog. The dog indicated the smell of illegal odor of narcotics at the Defendant's property, on this basis Detective 1 applied for and received a search warrant to search the Defendant's residence. Analysis: Property concerns are not the sole concern of the 4th amendment, as indicated in Katz, but it does not subtract that essential protection. Thus, physically intruding on persons, houses, papers, or effects a search has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment Officers were gathering information and did so by physically intruding on the area belonging to Defendant and surrounding areas--curtilage of house. And were occupying that area not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner Trained dog on property is not a custom in the area and was thus not licensed. Could have knocked on the door. Property analysis: the doorstep and path, even though part of the curtilage, are generally accessible through an implicit license to potential visitors except those who: Stray off the front path Stay too long in the garden Enter for an investigatory purpose Property analysis operates as a methaphor to determine the scope fo the right to exclude the government. See Byrd v. U.S. (Kennedy Majority) and Capenter v. U.S. (Kennedy, Dissent) Property analysis is a substituted for a normative analysis of the police and policing Test Is the area constitutionally protected? Was the search or seizure accomplished through an unlicensed/illegal means? Dont need to shield eyes of things in open public, but cannot set his foot upon his neighbor's property without his neighbors permission or custom implied from the habits of the country If the police search certain types of property (houses, papers, and effects) the fourth Amendment applies If there is no property interest implicated, only then do we turn to katzs privacy analysis Holding: Yes, it was a fourth amendment violation because it was an area protected by the 4th amendment and the police had not license or authority to perform this function. Therefore, they were trespassing on the person's property without a warrant, thus a search in violation. Just what property customs Concurrence: Kagan (Ginsburg and Sotomayor) Police came to the house with a super sensitive instrument that helped them perceive things they could not through unassisted means. Thus, a trespass Dissent:Alito (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer)--property/common law define Using a dog for a lawful means that then detects narcotics is not illegal and there is no authority for the court's proposition as such. Odors emanating from home is not reasonably protected for privacy, and can be detected by a reasonable person or a dog that passes by Common law property concepts define the limits of the right to exclude So the general easement to use the path does not change based on the investigatory purpose of the pedestrian (or dog) Drug Sniffing Dogs When dog is alerted (b/c smells drugs) this suffices as PC This is a sensory enhancing device = makes search more intrusive BUT where devices merely enhance sensory perception and facilitates surveillance that otherwise would be possible without the enhancement (drug sniffing dog here)( then the 4th amm is NOT implicated Thus, cops can wander around ANY public area with a drug sniffing dog (ex airport) Apply Katz Test [have to do this test with two diff places the home where the weed is and the curtilage around the home where the dog is sniffing [NOTE: ct did not REALLY go into detail with the privacy analysis b/c switched pretty quick to property analysis (below), but professor went through it just so we would know how to approach/what argue are] Home Prong 1 = satisfied b/c D has weed INSIDE the house. Prong 2 re expectation? Place Inside home so def re expectation of privacy there Intrusiveness Even minimally intrusive searches here = not ok THUS ( Yes right to privacy here protected by 4th amm. Curtilage Prong 1 NO, not met b/c the dog and cop smelled it on the curtilage = D did not successfully hide it. Prong 2 Place Usually a re expectation of privacy in curtilage Intrusiveness Can argue that this is a highly intrusive search b/c this dog is a sensory enhancing device Can argue that this is NOT too intrusive b/c these dogs are sui generis ( They ONLY say whether there is contraband or not, can only detect criminal activity. They do not detect other random, private details. Dogs wont show if you are in shower or not. Just says if there are drugs in there or not. So depends on which argument ct decides to go with (didnt decide here b/c didnt really full on go through) BUT regardless as to whichever level of intrusiveness it finds, ct could still say that search was re and not too intrusive if use: Empirical std by saying that the cops were where any public person COULD be (girl scouts go up to your porch etc) OR customary approach too (frequently solicitors etc come up to your porch) Thus ( There was no privacy right on the curtilage so what the cop did was reasonable. HOWEVER, ct really just grazed privacy issue and instead switched to prop analysis But what about Warden??? In Warden said prop analysis is dead and replaced by privacy analysis Well the ct here ignores this and does not cite Warden Ct held that property analysis didnt go away, just added the privacy analysis WITH the property analysis When do you go through property analysis? ( when case involves some sort of physical intrusion on houses, papers, effects, and persons ( THAT is the trigger [EXAM] ( If the above is triggered then know that there is two steps, have to go through [1] property analysis and then [2] privacy analysis Ct determined the scope of the 4th amm (to see if D was protected by it) by way of the trespass analysis If the intrusion is on houses, papers, effects, or persons then that is EXPRESSLY provided for in the 4th amm = the 4th amm protects s/s of these particular things. Here, cops searched Ds house which is a constitutional protected area If it is held that there is a physical intrusion on this constitutionally protected area then that is deemed a search under the 4th amm = falls WITHIN 4th amm protection so must have Warrant + PC. Note: here likely that the focus is not on the interference with the house, but mostly with the interference of the curtilage How to decide if it is a physical intrusion ( Societal property expectations ask what is the customary expectations of public There is an implied license for people to approach the door (But, note that only on the beaten path up to porch/door, no one has license to go off beaten path) Customarily expect this to be used by like girl scouts, etc Do not customarily expect cops with drug sniffing dogs to use th physical intrusion Scalia (maj opinion) thinks that if it was a cop without a dog then more like girl scouts BUT the adding of the dog = more intrusive. Hold ( physically intruded Ds property interest. Thus, it is considered a search within 4th amm protections so cop needed PC + Warrant to do this which he did not. Thus, D had no re expectation of privacy, but did have a property interest which put this WITHIN the 4th amm Knowingly Exposed, Assumption of Risk Under Katz what a person knowingly exposes to the public. . .is not [private]. In White, a speaker bears the risk his companions may be reporting to the police US v. White (White) Cops are trying to catch drug dealer so cops get dealers buddy to become a snitch and sets up a seires of stings. One sting had cop in closet while they were talking. Another sting was having snitch wear a wire while they were talking in DEALERS home. There is no functional difference between speaking to a snitch and a police with a wire. Hold: No fourth amendment violation, the use of the recorder is more accurate and sufficiently analogous to using an informant to testify about the conversations they had or using an undercover agent. Df assumed the risk that the "friend" would spill the beans and there is no distinction between it being a "spy" or a "friend" who spills the beans because they are both giving up the information and the tape preserves the information more accurately. Subjective Prong Actual expectations unimportant Our problem is not what the privacy expectations of particular defendants in particular situations may be or the extent to which they may in fact have relied on the discretion of their companions (Allen 371) Objective Case turns on what expectations are reasonable or justifiable Our problem, in terms of the principles announced inKatz, is what expectations of privacy are constitutionally justifiable(Allen 372) Social stds might be that re to expect privacy when talk to best friend, but that wont save you for when you knowingly exposing info to public Thus this is a BIG move by ct b/c even though trying to keep it secret, if knowingly expose to third party (EVEN IN OWN HOME!) then fail prong 1 = no 4th amm protection. So moral of story basically watch who you are talking to. Also, thinks that this is not crossing the like b/c this is GOOD EVIDENCE! It is accurate and reliable. No nearsay of snitch, we are convicting D on his OWN testimony Thus, here maj ct is valuable evidentiary value over privacy concerns Dissent (Douglas): Douglas argues that is a qualitative difference between eavesdropping and electronic monitoring Recently, the Court has worried more about quantitative differences between ordinary surveillance and electronic monitoring (compare Knotts and Karo with Carpenter) Dissent (Harlan): Harlan, remember, coined the two part test in Katz. Now insists that second prong is normative Two issues Quality of intrusion (greater if electronic monitoring) Risk analysis is not merely an empirical inquiry Operates against backdrop of law (what may state do lawfully?) Court not only reflects but projects these laws and customs So risk analysis has normative content built in Relationship with government What we expect in a free society is not the states unlimited right to use informants Instead, expect bugs based on warrants Should look at to societies expectations and determine "whether under our system of government, as reflected in the Constitution, we should impose on our citizens the risks of the electronic listener or observer without at least the protection of a warrant requirement." Test: balance the nature of the practice and the likely extent of its impact on the individuals sense of security balanced against the utility of the conduct as a technique of law enforcement Should get a warrant, the warrant procedure would not abolish electronic eavesdropping but interpose the judicial process and redistribute the privacy risks throughout society in a way that produces the results the plurality opinion ascribes in On Lee. "It would not prevent public officials from engaging in the practice unless they first had probable cause to suspect an individual of involvement in illegal activities and had tested their version of the facts before a detached judicial officer." Court's analysis must be normative and have a risk analysis built in. Should just get a warrant Assumption of Risk/Abandonment CA v. Greenwood (White) (Assumption of Risk) D engaged in narcotics in home. Cops get tip. Cops surveillance of house and then ask garbage man to deliver Ds garbage to cops. D leaves trash on curb for garbage man to pick up. Garbage man gives to cops. Cops look through and find evid of drugs. Proc. Posture: Cal superior court upheld precedent that determined warrantless garbage searches violated Fourth Amendment and Police wouldnt have had probable cause without for that garbage search. Court of appeal affirmed. Cal Sup. Court denied petition for review. Scotus granted cert and reversed Analysis: Plastic Garbage bags on the street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers and snoops Respondents placed the garbage on the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party Three rationales Risk (possibility of exposure) Legitimacy (empiricalif anyone else can get into it so can police) Or Abandonment (Df's express purpose was to convey [the trash] to a third party") Rule: Warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb outside the Greenwood house would violate the Fourth Amendment only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable. Expectation of privacy does not give rise to 4th Amend protections unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable Holding: No 4th Amendment protection for garbage bags on the street. Dissent (Brennan): Worried about the practical privacy concerns that lack of judicial oversight when government/police can obtain information without a warrant. Says that you cant search the garbage until the bag has been opened. If the bag is sitting on the sidewalk, then you have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy Government needs warrant to rummage Rejects risk (only reasonable if actual exposure Legitimate only if warrant No abandonment until garbage dump (mail example) Knotts & Karo Both of these cases turn on the place of surveillance and the limits of enhancement Is there a privacy interest in the beeper being in the car? Is the beeper of such sophisticated technology Knotts: if the police could legitimately view the area, then there is no search (open fields) Karo: it is important that the beeper is inside the house, A search occurs when technology gets information that is inside the house Information Privacy & 4th Amendment Kyllo v. United States (2001) (J. Scalia): 4th Amendment, Information, Privacy and 4th, 3rd party doctrine and government directly snooping, Privacy Argument Facts: Df was suspected of growing Weed in his home, which required high-intensity lamps that emit heat. US. Dept of Int. officials, without a warrant, used a thermal scanning device to find out if the house emitted more heat than the surrounding areas and where the heat could be coming from. They found it was in the garage. With testimony of informants, thermal imaging scan, and utility bills, a Magistrate judge issued a warrant. Petitioner was indicted for marijuana manufacturing Proc. Posture: unsuccessfully moved to repress evidence seized from home. 9th cir. Remanded for evidentiary hearing. The Dist. Court found the imaging device "is a non-intrusive device which emits no rays or beams and shows a crude visual image of the heat being radiated form the outside of the house" the device cannot be used to penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activity. Dist. Ct. reaffirmed its denial of motion to suppress. 9th initially reversed, but then withdrew that opinion and affirmed Analysis: Pointed to Katz and stated that we must take into account developing technology and the fact that information was only obtained by picking up waves "off the wall" and not through the wall is a mechanical interpretation/application of the 4th amendment. There was a heightened subjective expectation of privacy because they were in their home and excluded people. There was also an objective expectation of privacy because it is the home, which is protected, and the tool can get information within the walls of the homerevealing intimate details. Rule: Any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area" constitutes a search--at least where the technology in question is not in general public use. In the home, all details are intimate details, because the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes. Whereas commercial property/complexes may not have that privilege. See Dow Chemicals, 476 U.S. at 238. Holding: (1) the information obtained by the thermal image was the product of a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Dissent:(J. Stevens): This camera was a passive off-the-wall recording of information and heat, like aromas, can be observed by the casual passerby This Case: Reaffirms the Katz test and warrant requirement for searches of the home Karo and Kyllo draw a bright line around the home, in contrast with movement in public Note: Here only ran through Katz Test, and not property interest analysis (Jardines) Reason is that ( Prop interest analysis was not triggered b/c here cops did not physical intrude on houses, papers, effects, or persons since they are in the street searching. There was no physical intrusion on curtilage or home. United States v. Jones (2012) (J. Scalia) 4th Amendment, Information, Privacy and 4th, Property/Trespass Analysis Issue: is using a GPS device to track a vehicle a search and seizure under the 4th amendment? Facts: Government suspected the Df of trafficking in narcotics and made target of a joint investigation between FBI and D.C. Metro Police. Officers use investigative techniques, and obtained a warrant to use an electronic tracking device on a vehicle registered to Df's wife, the warrant authorized installation of the device in D.C. within 10 days. On 11th day, the GPS device was installed on the car in Maryland. Gov't does not argue compliance with the warrant, but that it was not needed. Based on the GPS device, the Government obtained 2,000 pages of information which was used to place the Df at the location of a drug stash house. That information was used to indict the Df on a conspiracy charge Analysis: Need not address the concerns in Katz. "At bottom, we must 'assure preservation of that degree of privacy against government tht existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. As explained, for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas ("persons, houses, papers, and effects") it enumerates." Katz did not repudiate that understanding but established an additional means of 4th amendment analysis. How does Scalia deal with knotts and karo? said there was no trespass because the government got consent from someone else to put the "beeper" somewhere which was then handed over to the "bad guys" What is the property analysis Scalia contemplates in Jones versus the Property rights in Jardines? A car is an effect, and so any interference with the car is a trespass Trespass analysis A car is an effect and placing the GPS on the car is interference with the effect, thus a search within scope of 4th amendment. Holding: A vehicle is a person's "effect" as defined under the Constitution and the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicles movements, constitutes a "search." Scalia framed the issue as "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information." By this, he determined it was a physical intrusion. Concurrence (Sotomayor): "The government usurped Jones' property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection." Normative approach Focuses on the role of the police in society Because GPS monitoring dangerously alters the relationship between individual and government, this type of search needs 4th Amendment scrutiny Dissent (Alito): Perform Katz test and avoid property analysis. The GPS monitoring is readily available and is what someone could witness. In Knotts/Kyro the beepers there were fairlyl low tech, cops still had to follow the car so can keep the bloop circle screen going. BUT the GPS here = more sophisticated and cheaper cops can just sit in office and ask companies to forward data to them. Sotomayor and Alito articulate worry about this how increased use of tech will affect privacy Alitos solution do NOT use property analysis, just do Katz Test Sotomayors solution use both tests BUT we need to fix how we analyze the re expectation of privacy under prong 2 of Katz Test Soto said sure Scalia, we can do the prop test as well, BUT that wont really come to play in this digital world b/c no need to physically place it = prop analysis wont be triggered. Now can just call a comp and get that info (cell phone comp etc) so we need to fix our analysis on THAT worry. We, the cts, need to fix Katz Test and adjust to this tech world Alito argues sure we need to fix Katz Test but that is up to the leg (b/c better at dealing with this) to fix, not the cts. Major Debate: Re expectations determined by cts (normative) or the leg (empirical) Sotomayor takes a normative approach GPS monitoring dangerously alters the relationship between the indiv and the gvt so we need a diff level of 4th amm scrutiny She thought in this tech age, it is hard not to voluntarily give info when using tech. Thus, if we think of re privacy as just trying to keep stuff secret v. voluntarily disclosing it then will lead to less privacy b/c you can be voluntarily disclosing stuff now just by choosing to carry a phone. Not trying to hide stuff but also not trying to expose stuff Note: the voluntarily disclose stuff is under Prong 1 so looks like the weight of data under the re prong is collapsing the subj manifestation prong thus, Katz analysis might not be able to help us in this new age. We need to adjust it. Need to rethink Katz test and the Third Party Doctrine. Notes after all of the above Privacy/Property Cases Steps to Follow Ask, what is the object that the cops are searching for? If it is a person, house, paper, or effects then apply property/trespass analysis (Jardines and Jones) If object is not tangible (one of 4 things) or property analysis is a bust, then do Katz Test Prong 1 subj manifestation of expectation of privacy? If no then = does not fall within 4th amm = no constitutional protection If yes, move on. Prong 2 is the expectation of privacy reasonable? Three Considerations when evaluation reasonableness ( Place of surveillance (Katz) Is the place entitled to heightened protection? Home highest heightened protection Curtilage re high heightened protection Open filed no protection Intrusiveness of surveillance Intrusive = Sensory enhancing devices Diff levels of how intrusive One way to figure out the level ask, does the public generally have access to that tool? ex) Heat imaging tool in Kyllo = no public generally does not have access to that. If it is a tool that only a spy would use then it is more re for public to expect that gvt wont use such crazy spy gear to spy on us etc. High tech searches can be VERY intrusive, especially upon highly protected private areas like home (Kyllo) Not as Intrusive = Exposure to public/assumption of risk (White/Greenwood) If you knowingly expose to someone and assume that risk then not as intrusive Third Party Doctrine (White) Knowingly expose closed container so = abandon, assume risk that someone or something could reveal the contents (Greenwood) Object of search (what surveillance can turn up) We worry about what kind of stuff this type of search can turn up Tool = Sui generis (like drug sniffing dog) then not as much of a worry (Jardines) If heat imaging device then can reveal more personal stuff than just the criminal stuff = worry more (Kyllo) Plain feel doctrine Electronic Surveillance There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in metadata that reveals an individuals movements over a period of time. Content v. Metadata Metadata web addresses, locations, phone numbers (Smith), how long call lasts, time calling etc Some think DOES NOT fall within 4th amm, no privacy right to this stuff b/c knowingly expose it to ISP or cell phone providers. So cops can get this without warrant + PC b/c of the Third Party Doctrine However, Graham below disagreed Smith case cops used a pin register to find out the phone number D dialed. Ct held that still had no expectation of privacy b/c in old days would tell operator to dial and then assume risk that she will tell third party should be the same even if use diff tools. Thus, phone numbers (form of metadata) are not re considered private Content/Data the content of your convo either over the phone (Katz), e-mail, etc Some think this DOES fall in 4th amm b/c expectation (subj and re) that convos private BUT there is an argument that if you sign a privacy agmt with provider that allows them to access your content then = knowingly expose = Can use Third Party Doctrine to state that DOES NOT fall within 4th amm. Miller case When you go to the bank and give them your business details, even though bank says will keep info private, they will not keep it private amongst the bank employees. Thus, knowingly exposing = use Third Party Doctrine to find that no expectation of privacy for this info Under this case, find that giving info to a provider even if they say they will keep I limitedly private means you have NO expectation of privacy. Cops can get this without PC + Warrant. Case Regarding Content US v. Warshack (6th cir) male enhancement supp, found out meds and ads were fake. Prosecuted for fraud. Cop got owners emails by asking his ISP provider to store stuff that they otherwise would not store and then to give them to cops. Which they did. Owner moves to suppress evid. Imp note: we are dealing with CONTENT, not with ADDRESS Ct applied Katz Test Prong 1 Ct held that owner manifested expectation that emails should be shielded from outside scrutiny b/c had personal and damning stuff in those e-mails. How ct viewed this is interesting One way that owner could have ACTUALLY shielded content was to encrypt, but he did not do this. Also, could argue that this prong is NOT met since owner signed K w/ ISP provider allowing ISP provider to access info Could argue that this was voluntary conveyance thus Third Party Doctrine kicks in. This is Carpernter cases view (which is currently going to Sup. Ct) However, here the ct rejects the third party doctrine so as to prohibit the search of stored data Cts Reasoning 1 ( held that there is a DIFFERENCE between the content and the address [data v. metadata] E-mail contains private content like a sealed letter given to a carrier. Thus, under trad 4th amm carrier is allowed to access the addresses but NOT the content. Issue with cts analysis here ct used this argument as to SCA. But really this argument is not about stored info and thus should have argued Title III. Also, issue with arguing with SCA even if not considered voluntarily conveyed, there is also an argument that this info has been abandoned (Greenwood) Ex) Leave letter in post office, there for 6 mo, has it been abandoned thus you risk post man opening it or rodent getting into it and exposing it? Thus, Cts reasoning is not all that great here. Cts Reasoning 2 ( Miller and Smith should NOT apply Ct distinguished this case from Miller by saying that simple bus records were involved in Miller Crappy argument b/c are you saying that e-mail is complex here? Also, Ct distinguishes by saying that in Miller giving it to recipient (meant to go to that person), but here, giving it to carrier (not meant to go to that person Better argument Cases Regarding Metadata Graham case About whether cops can get location info from cell companies that have your locations when your phone connects to the closest tower. Cell tower location info = metadata, NOT content. Hold ( there is a privacy expectation in this metadata b/c tracking it is highly intrusive. The length of surveillance & the involuntary disclosure are big reasons here The worry ( metadata can ALMOST tell you content of the data and may even be MORE embarrassing Ex) visit porn sites, etc Sotomayor and Alito worry that metadata is SO revealing that no difference between that and data, and in some cases could be even MORE intrusive = may need to rethink Katz Test. Carpenter v. US (6th cir) current case that is pending Sup Ct cert. Also about using info from cell towers to locate you (which is metadata) Lower cts distinguish data from metadata There is expectation of privacy with data (like content of convo) There is NO expectation of privacy with metadata However, there is a time limit as to such surveillance being reasonable. Lower cts take the view that Miller and Smith DO apply, saying that such involvement with tech/businesses still applies the Third Party Doctrine. So that if provide info to bus/through tech = voluntary conveyance = fail prong 1. Hold that people generally know location is going to cell tower (see low bars on cell move closer to a cell tower to get better connection) and they still allow such info to be communicated thus, this is voluntarily conveyed info so cell comps can communicate it to third part (cops) Lower cts held that this info is not even the individuals to keep private, thinks that the info belongs to the ISP provider. Prong 1 USED to be did you successfully hide. Under Carpenter lower cts found that it is now did you intentionally disclose? Easy to say you did intentionally disclose to ISP providers, cell providers, etc = fail prong 1 Thus, the Katz Test has widened so data stuff is slipping through = decrease in privacy with this stuff. Data is the exception because it is comprehensive. . .treats data differently Balancing Test: Ease v. Intrusiveness If it goes beep beep then can track it. But if using metadata and get it from the source that says not nearly what you did from beep beep and beep beep cant do that, then it is a violation. Sup Ct granted cert ( Will decide either to let leg sort it out or to fix Katz Test themselves Dissent: The dissenters read these contrasts as a balancing test The claim that the rule is now, under Katzs reasonable expectation of privacy prong, that courts must : Determine whether the information fits the qualitatively different category Weigh privacy interests (sensitivity of information) against costs of disclosure (arbitrariness; too permeating police surveillance) (Roberts, thinks its intrusive because get everythingit is so easy Seizure Seizure test: how would an objectively reasonable, innocent, person respond to the police. Three tests to determine whether a seizure occurs Through means intentionally applied Brower v. County of Inyo (1989): Roadblock leading to collision accomplished seizure Reasonable person free to leave test Florida v. Bostick (1991): measured from perspective of reasonable person Objective based on what a reasonable person would feel, measured from the perspective of an innocent person with reasonable fortitude RULE: would a reasonable person, who is innocent and with reasonable fortitude, feel free to leave Non-interference with following you around is not a seizure that requires a warrant United States v. Drayton (2002): free to decline questioning Fudges line between coercion and consentDrayton says Hodari D. does not apply in these circumstance. Measured from perspective of innocent person with reasonable fortitude Some physical constraint of the suspect is actually achieved California v. Hodari D. (1991): seized only where constraint maintained over suspect Seized when there is some sort of public display of authority (e.g., when speeding and police put sirens on to pull you over and you pull over) There is a continuum of physical constraints from encounters, to stops, to arrests that is analyzed to determine applicability of 4th amendment Encounters are unregulated by the fourth amendment No police coercion, free to leave. Mere presence of cops not a seizure Mere encounters without something more Stop and arrests are seizures under the 4th amendment and traditionally require a warrant issued upon probable cause Not free to leave, physically constrained You are not free to leave Where display of authority comes in When not free to decline consent Submission to show of auth Ex) Cop told you to stop, and you turn around hands in the air = seized. BUT if tells you to stop and you run away = NOT seized Application of physical force that is intentionally implied Shooting you, handcuffs, tackling you, etc Arrestedmultiple items to determine if arrested BerkemerFactors (length of detention, movement of person and type of restraint) GantDf is arrested in back of cop car in cuffs. If look like you are being taken into custody Thus, cops will try to make it so that you are Free to leave for as long as they can until they get you to talk (give them PC) or get you to give voluntary consent. Two different reasons cops pull you over To give you a ticket cops want to seize you to give you that ticket and then intrusion is over, free to leave. Investigatory stop stop you b/c PC to give you a ticket for something but really the point is to search your car for weapons/drugs etc. Have PC for ticket but NOT for search of car, thus, cops try to get you to stick around voluntarily even though technically free to leave. Hope to stay within the 4th amm free zone and eventually get you to tell them something that gives them PC OR give them consent. Free to leave/Free to Decline Consent Case Reasonable person free to leave/Decline consent Factors: (1) Display of authority/threatening presence of officers (2) Wearing Uniforms/badges (3) tone of voice/presence (authoritative/cumpulsion) (4) physical touching (5) display of weapon US v. Drayton (Kennedy) Brown and Drayton were on bus that stopped for gas. 3 cops came on. 1 cop is at the front watching, other two walking up and down aisle talking to people. No one is blocking aisle so could leave at any time. Cop went to Brown and asked to check his bad, Brown consented, didnt find anything. Cop noticed two men were wearing bulky clothes but hot out. Cop asked to check his person, Brown consented, found cocaine on Brown and arrested him. Then asked Drayton if can check his person, Drayton consented, found cocaine and arrested. Drayton moved to suppress evid. Note the drugs were taped to their bodies inside trousers = pretty intrusive pat down Test: Reasonable person, who is innocent and rational, believes they are not free to disregard the police (leave or to answer the police) The objective tests The tests Would a reasonable person think that they were free to leave? Would a reasonable person feel free to decline consent to search? Who is the reasonable person ct is talking about? The reasonably innocent person Was there a display of auth by the cops that would lead a re person to feel that they werent free to leave or that they could not decline consent to search? Ct emphasized that cops were talking in a quiet and polite tone of voice, aisles were not blocked, they did not pull out guns Thus, based on this = seemed free to leave/free to decline consent To Kennedy, uniforms do not make a difference as to the 4th amendment seizure analysis because the uniform is not a threatening symbol but an indication of safety Only display of auth was just displaying their badges which is to make sure people know that they are the police Is it re to think that if JUST pulling out and displaying badge then thats a sufficient display of auth to show not free to leave/cant decline consent? Depends on where you are at. If you are at a beach = little more open/public so re to think still free to leave even if see the badge. BUT if displayed in confined space (like on bus), then maybe more reasonable to think not free to leave. But, mere fact that wearing a badge = not sufficient to say not free to leave. Also note that consent must be given freely. Otherwise, would need PC + Warrant. True that Drayton just saw his friend get searched/arrested then he doesnt subjectively feel free to decline consent. BUT this is an obj test where the re person is a reasonably innocent person Thus, no need to worry about what guilty people with drugs in trousers would do. Here, can argue that cops asked for consent but what they were REALLY doing was command authority Command Presence Cops put off this type of presence b/c have badge, gun, etc. This type of presence allows them to control. Pro: this is one tactic that can be used instead of using gun Con: it convinces people that they MUST comply even though cop is technically talking with nice/polite tone and technically they are still free to leave Like here, it is used to get Draytons consent Ct assigns no constitutional significance on this and it hides the power implicit in command presence from consti view This is not a limit case Cops understand that this type of obj test gives them ROOM to act Thus, smart cops see this case not as a limit case but as a permission case b/c can treat this as a how to list As long as I talk polite, dont intrude exit then I can do X. Thus ( Seizure test is objective how would a re person have responded to cop Issue ( b/c obj test then we are not asking subj questions so factors that have an imp role (like status, race, culture, etc) do not come into the picture Dissent Better if we require cops to inform the people that they are free to leave Drayton did not realize that he was NOT seized, he thought he was seized right when cop started talking to him. Ct rejected this b/c did not want a categorical test, instead wanted a totality of the circumstances test (balancing test essentially) Thinks that the # of police officers and the air of intimidation matter as to the coercive/confrontational nature of the Pg 408 "The police not only carry legitimate authority but also exercise power from from immediate check; and when the attention of several officers is brought to bear on one civilian the imbalance of immediate power is unmistakable" Souter looks to the imbalance of power Submission to Authority Seizures may be accomplished either by physical detention or submission by suspect CA v. Hodari D. Guy flees, cop chases him, and during the chase, guy throws drugs away, then cop tackles. Arrested and guy is trying to suppress the evid of the drugs. Well was he seized when he threw the drugs, b/c if he was and there was no PC + Warrant then cant let the drugs come in as evid Hold ( you are seized when you are grabbed. But if you are not grabbed then you are only seized if you submit Thus, seizures may be accomplished EITHER by physical detention OR submission by suspect If cop says stop and you stop = you submitted = you are seized If cop says stop and you keep running = you are not seized Note: if you are grabbed at time 1, freed at time 2, and then grabbed at time 3 again ( you are only seized at Time 1 and Time 3 Seizure-Physical touching is per se seizure The search occurred before the unjustified seizure (tackle) because the person threw the drugs. So it is not an illegal search/seizure of the drugs Was the "seizure" unjustified? If, here, the tackle was a seizure that was unjustified and the police found drugs on them, then it may be excludable evidence. Physical Force Intentionally Implied Intent Police must intend to seize but this is an objective test! Brendlin case the police objectively intended the means used to effect seizure Cannot look at subj intent of the cops when determining if person was seized Brower holds that police must intend to seize How does this fit with the objective test in Mendenhall? Brendlins answer: the police objectively intended the means used to effect a seizure the criterion of willful restriction on freedom of movement is no invitation to look to subjective intent when determining who is seized Inyo case Car chase. Cops set up barricade w/ intent stop D by getting him to crash into it. During the chase = no seizure b/c not submitting Seizure occurs when crash b/c physical force that cops objectively intended to seize. Warrant Process Generally The warrant process requires a magistrate to predetermine probable cause without the bias of hindsight Substantive issue (probable cause) Procedural (go to a magistrate or exception) Execute the warrant Protects against unjustified and arbitrary searches or seizures Criminal investigation is often competitive enterprise Zealous police officers may be tempted to cheat, and do justice outside the rule of law Warrant process permits a neutral magistrate to referee the crime fighting process Magistrate provides a judicial check on executive power Executing a Warrant When executing a warrant, the police balance protecting individual rights against catching criminals Richards: RULE So long as the officer knocks and announces their presence they may enter, and can do so by force over an objection, unless knocking and announcing their presence is dangerous, futile, or permits destruction of evidence The exception is a objective, reasonable person standard to be determined on a case by case basis. Ramirez: Need for no-knock entry evaluated using reasonable suspicion standard US v. Banks (J. Souter) Got tip about cocaine in small apt and got a warrant to search. Cops K/A. Waited 15-20 seconds and then forcibly entered, D was in the shower. Found cocaine. Banks moved to suppress evid b/c cops waited unre short time before forcing entry. 9th cir (lower ct) decided to regulate what cops do by having criteria case that distinguished between: force/unforce and exigent cir/non-exigent cir. Basically tried to draft guidelines to direct the K/A process Think that the cts should control what cops do since it has to apply the test to the situation. Thus, gives cops little discretion Basically, taking it out of the hands of the cops and putting a second by second approach to K/A deal. Which the ct shall regulate. Wants stricter std for cops b/c dont fully trust cops Sup ct rejects 9th cirs guidelines Instead, this ct applied totality of the cir and re person tests b/c wanted a more flexible std that responds to exigencies/situations on the ground This gives cops more discretion since less regulated = more wiggle room This ct trusts the police to decide So only constraints on cops come from training and stuff like that Rejects guidelines for how long to wait after knock before entering Case-by-case analysis, court's job is to not put down clear guidelines but on-the-spot evaluation of well trained police officers (experience of the officer) SCOTUS rejects 9th circuit guidelines, because the checklist is too much to follow. Rule: Wait a reasonable amount of time before forcibly enter, not reasonable about how long the defendant gets to the door but how long it would take to destroy evidence after a police knocks and announces. Muehler v. Mena (2005) (J. Rehnquist) Detention FACTS: person looking for is not on the premises but another premises where he is found but not detained. Whereas Mena was detained for three hours even though she was not a suspect or threatening. About what cops get to do once they are INSIDE house. Here, there was a drive by shooting. Trace back to house with some suspect of the gang members. So got warrant to search it for weapons. Detained one suspect, Mena, in house and three others that were in house. Handcuffed Mena behind back and kept her in a guarded room for 3 hrs. During this time, got immigration service to come and ask questions no issues. Looks to Summers "officers executing a search warranthave the authority to detail the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted." But there is a totality of the circumstances analysis to determine reasonableness The length of the detention, the severity of the detention Was the handcuff, of a bystander, behind the back a reasonable intrusion when looking for a potentially violent gangmember to protect the police? Handcuff was a minimal further intrusion and was reasonable under the circumstances given the officer safety as balanced against the degree of the intrusion. General Rule When cops get into house, they can detain suspects that are also inside the house and as long as force and time detained is reasonable then that is a reasonable execution of a warrant. Summers: officers executing a search warrant have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. BUT there is no automatic right to use force while detaining The Force Used Handcuffs = usually low on spectrum of force Ct was OK with the use of force on Mena here Diff than ct in Mapps where ct was less okay with the use of force This shows that cts have become much more tolerant of relatively low level of police use of force like the use of handcuffs. Note: can detain WITHOUT handcuffs Timing Justification for detaining someone stops at some point Dissent justification stopped once they did not find the shooter at the house and was radioed that found him at his moms house. So once found that out, why still keep Mena handcuffed? Mena treats the intrusiveness of the seizure as incidental to the intrusiveness of the search  Probable Cause Police must have some evidence of criminal wrongdoing Qualitative question: how accurate and reliable must that information be? Court relaxed the qualitative standard in Gates Not just what the police think How probable must be the officer's evidence of wrongdoing? Aguilar v. Texas (1964): magistrate responsible for making her own determination of probable cause independent of officer, based on evidence presented in affidavit Brinegar v. United States (1949): facts sufficientto warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. more than bare suspicion and less than evidence which would justifyconviction not beyond reasonable doubt standard in crim trial. But following nathanson, the police officer's individual belief or suspicion is not enough (officer's hunch) Nathanson v. United States (1933): Officers belief or suspicion is too low a standard Draper v. United States (1958): probable cause if lots of evidence corroborates informants detailed description of suspect Gates: fair probability=probable cause (25%), not balance of probabilities but whether it was probable X did it Standard does not vary from crime to crime Quantitative question: how much information is sufficient? Probable cause concerns the quality and quantity of evidence needed to justify searching a particular place for evidence of some crime or seizing a suspect. Officers (or informants) belief or hunches, alone, are insufficient (even if generally right) Qualitative Test The evidence presented at the magistrate probable cause hearing determines the test applied If it is informant tip then use that test (with Spinelli see slides)--this is more of a hearesay issue because officer is testifying based on third-party statement Spinelli (two prong)--if satisfy then there is probable cause Is source reliable based on their track record? (veracity prong) What are the details of the sources information? (basis of knowledge prong) If deficient with either prong, use totality of circumstances test re Gates Determine whether there is a "fair probability" a reasonable person could think there was evidence of a crime If it is officer's own independent observation (officer observed this and has personal knowledge of the facts) ID historical facts observed by the officer (subjective) if dont have any of this then go to #3 in informant's tip test Determine the officer's level of training and experience (subjective) Determine whether a reasonable officer with the same (background) training and experience would have thought that there was evidence of a crime (objective) per Ornelas Spinelli v. United States (1969)[Informer Tip]: Two-prong, qualitative test to establish probable cause : FACTS: FBI got an anonymous tip from informant that D was running book keeping operation. Cop submit affidavit with info from informant Test (both must be satisfied): Is source reliable based on their track record? (veracity prong) What are the details of the sources information? (basis of knowledge prong) The police officer must establish that the corroborating facts sufficiently support both prongs Spinelli: necessary that basis of knowledge includes incriminating facts Draper: sufficient if basis of knowledge includes corroborating facts Need not include facts showing guilt Analysis: Like in Nathanson, ct here added that magistrate is responsible for making her OWN determination of PC independent of officer AND an informant In this case, discusses Draper case In this case, informant gave BUNCH of info about what D was wearing and when would be exiting train etc and then stated that D had drugs on him. Cops investigated and turned out that all those details informant gave were true cops corroborated the info from the informant. Ct held that this satisfied PC b/c what gave A LOT of info about the Ds appearance/arrival on train etc which was corroborated; thus, can infer that the info about there being a crime is also true. How did ct analyze the affidavit The Affidavit Routes D took D had 2 phones D always went to same location D was a well-known Gambler (cops testimony) And D accepted wagers (informants tip) #1-3 = very Draper type of info (cops got from investigation after got the tip from informant) b/c it is detailed BUT ct did not think that #1-3 was sufficient to est PC All of that does NOT suggest criminal activity. All innocent activity Ct also held that #4 is not sufficient to est PC b/c this is just a statement of the cops belief and cops failed to give any back up for that conclusion. Thus, under Nathanson, this is insufficient since magistrates cannot rely on cops conclusory statements b/c statement of belief is insufficient THUS, the only thing that might lead to PC in this Affidavit is #5 the tip from the informant. Ct analyzes this ( Ct rejects the totality of cir test and instead adopted a quite high std ( Informants tip can lead to PC IF can prove informants basis of information (accuracy) AND their reliability (veracity) Basis of the Information (accuracy) Does the informant have personal knowledge about the criminal activity? ( Person must have perceived criminal activity. Can est this by: Saying how person learned of it (saw it, heard it, etc) OR Saying how they heard of it from another reliable source So basically, can they describe the crime accurately? Reliability (Veracity) Is the informant historically or actually a reliable source of info? Can est this in two diff ways: Even if person is not a great person, they almost always get it right (Ex) criminal that consistently performs, like gave us 50 tips and 80% all turned out true. Person is just a well-known honest person, so we believe them (Ex) he is a pastor (pillar of community), so even if this is his first prediction, know he is reliable b/c would not lie Cop vouching for the informant as reliable = not sufficient, need evid of it by either of the 2 ways above. Note: Here, could not pillar of community argument b/c it was an anonymous tip so confidential person. Note: BOTH prongs must be est independently Cure for Tip that does not meet Std? When view PC asking how much work expecting cop to do in to get the PC Well how much work do you expect the cops to do in order to confirm tips Thus, officer here est bunch of Draper type of info but should they have done more? ( if find that dont meet std then saying yeah, should have done more and found more evid Ct in Spinellis take on Draper Spinelli does not overrule Draper, ct just pretends that it is consistent However, concurrence states that there is a tension between these two cases In Draper, what matters is the AMOUNT of info that informant gives that is accurate. B/c states that can infer that D knows about criminal (including he committed crime) since informant gave lots of crime-neutral info (like what D was wearing) that turned out to be correct. About describing suspect accurately, not the crime accurately. In Spinelli, prong 1 requires personal knowledge about the criminal activity so that can infer that they know about that crime. NOT personal knowledge about the criminal. All about describing the crime accurately. What makes an informants tip reliable? Mere fact that person is informant? How is that different from Nathansons belief and suspicion standard Harlan: government implies that same information is more guilty-seeming when observed by informant rather than someone else (e.g., police, public) Fact that agents have corroborated informants information? Police observe same information as informant (corroboration) Still relying on informant for inference of guilt What more is needed is information about the informant and the nature of the evidence they have observed  Would the affidavit and corroboration be enough for probable cause? No, probably not. See Nathanson. Statements of opinion unsupported by facts entitle magistrate to independently draw that opinion, are insufficient to establish probable cause Thus, is there any more evidence to establish probable cause? Does the court think the only information If a confidential informant is correct about all of the innocent infromtion re a suspect, does that mean it is likely they are correct about the criminal information? Draper says yes. IT could help support probable clause Illinois v. Gates (1983) [Informer Tip]: Fair Probability Test Facts: cops got anonymous letter saying that hub and wife are trafficking drugs. States that there is $100,000 worth of drugs in basement AND states how the couple does it (wife drives to FL, hub flies, loads ar with drugs, he drives back, she flies back). From this tip, Cops do some work: calls and confirms hubs flight, calls fed in FL to track him off plane, tracks couple in hotel and confirms that they leave together in car back to home. Based on evidence that corroborated some info in the tip, cop thought enough PC Test: Inquiry into nature of informantion Practical, totality-of-the-circumstances, standard Ordinary person Indefinite standard Deficit in one prong may be compensated by other evidence Administrable by cops Lowered (quantitative) standard All the evidence collected by the police is eligible to support probable cause Analysis: Says spinelli test is too technical, need a more non-technical test [P]ractical, common-sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place Practical, non-technical, deals with probabilities, actions of reasonable people, common sense judgments Rejects as standard of proof the beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities standards Ct held to lower the std est in Spinelli and moved to totality of the cir test Wanted a complete picture where can balance ALL the info, something that is NOT technical, and from the perspective of ordinary re person (not an officer) Rejected Spinellis rule-bound approach, in favor of a more deferential analysis b/c held that PC is more fluid. PC is not technical, it is about probabilities in which re men act It is a practice, common sense decision as to whether there is fair probability [This is the NEW std for PC] Thus, basis of information and reliability prongs under Spinelli is considered in the totality of cir but so is other stuff too. Reasoning to lower the bar tips are super useful and if we use higher std in Spinelli case then lose valuable tips, especially anonymous tips b/c hard to prove reliability. Ct here basically readopts the Draper view Ct here thinks that cops did ENOUGH work to confirm tip b/c doing all research from his desk was just good policing, thus should meet the PC std However, one that is more for Spinelli type std could argue, no, should be req to do more! Cop hasnt left his chair at this point If think that PC is there to protect the indiv then may want comps to do more than a few phone calls Dissent ( The info here was actually less accurate than Draper b/c no 100,000 drugs found and drove back together. [Majority just ignored this.] Dissent ( The only cooberated facts here just show behavior consistent with innocent behavior (could just be romantic get away) Based on this cts holding, innocent behavior frequently can provided basis for PC We are less able to avoid cop interfence just by acting innocently In Spinelli, as long as dont show state that involved in criminal activity then no PC but NOW Gates is saying we are back to Draper where innocent activity is sufficient to est PC so long as it provides sufficient evid of trustworthiness given the totality of the cir. If informants tip is right about your innocent conduct then likely right about your criminal conduct the inference After Ornelas, evidence is evaluated form the perspective of a well-trained copa police officer views the facts through the lens of his police experience and expertise Appellate courts can ignore the district courts evidentiary findings in favor of the cops Ornelas v. US [Officer Observation] cop looking out for drug stuff. See big, old car that is usually used to hide drugs, Cali license plates (distrib weed), and check into motel. Find out check in at 4 am w/o reservation. Also it is winter, so why traveling here when not tourist season? Standard: Lowers the std yet again ( Introduces a Two Step Process (1) Ct assesses the historic facts (what the cop perceived at the time deciding if it was worth it to look into) Ct here saw the type of car, the winter, motel w/o reservation, CA license plates (2) Ct also includes the inferences that a re police officer with training/experience [not just a cop but have facts that cop has training/experience in certain thing] would make from the background facts Ex) Cop here did 2000 drug stops so he has greater knowledge of what drug dealers look like than a re person. Thus, we must keep that in mind when doing the test This tips the balance in favor of the cops MORE b/c ordinary person wouldnt know this stuff but cop with experience/training would The historical facts about are neutral but the experience/training of the cop gives it the extra boost under totality of cir test this is the deal that tips the scale. Note: have to look at inferences that cop would draw from what he saw AT TIME officer thought had PC. Cant use hindsight to look at other facts. This only applies when the COP is doing the observation and we have knowledge that has diff experience/training otherwise use re person test under Gates How works with Nathanson This is consistent with Nathanson b/c there it was statement of belief, but here this is really a statement of competence Allowing cops experience as to background facts to be added to historical facts so can say that re cop with this type of training/experience would believe that there is fair probability criminal activity goin on Dissent This gives cops as much deference of trial judges Dissent thinks this is bad but others like maj thinks this is good Just know that it is a deregulatory move How works with Nathanson This is consistent with Nathanson b/c there it was statement of belief, but here this is really a statement of competence Allowing cops experience as to background facts to be added to historical facts so can say that re cop with this type of training/experience would believe that there is fair probability criminal activity goin on Dissent This gives cops as much deference of trial judges Dissent thinks this is bad but others like maj thinks this is good Just know that it is a deregulatory move   Justifying Search and Seizure without Warrant Most cases, a search or seizure requires probable cause AND a warrant. There are exceptions to the warrant preference (i.e., Police have probable cause, but lack a warrant). These exceptions are: Exigent Circumstances (specific reasonableness) Temporal and spatial aspects of search limited by nature of exigency So is nature of intrusion: breathalyzers permitted; blood testing requires warrant Protective community caretaking 4th Amendment Rule: Police may enter a home without a warrant if they have (1) Probable cause to think a crime has been committed and either (2.a) A Warrant, or as an exception, (2.b.) a reasonable belief that immediate entry is necessary Exceptions to Warrants Examples REQ PC but no warrant--Exigent Circ Emergency Exceptions that req PC but no Warrant Exigent Circumstances (specific reasonableness) temporal and spatial aspects of search limited by nature of exigency Destruction of evidence Suspect will escape Hot pursuit Search of Automobile (and containers therein) Req Re Suspicion and no WarrantCommunity Caretaking Protective Sweep Stop and Frisk Investigative Detentions Administrative and Inventory Searches Req Legal Arrest Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Circumvent 4th Amm so NO Justification Req Plain View Consent Req Generalized Re Suspicion Special Needs Doctrine Threat to officer Threat to safety  Exception to warrant preference where the police has (1) probable cause but (2) lacks a warrant Exigent Circumstances Mincey concerns the scope of the exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement The nature of the exigency determines the scope of the search: The amount of time they may remain inside without a warrant depends upon what sort of exigency they are responding to Once the police have secured the premises, they must leave and obtain a warrant before engaging in further prolonged searches For these cases PC is there but the question is whether the Police have sufficient authority? Usually warrants confer authority to enter by having the court pre-authorize the intrusion, but do the Police need pre-authorization BEFORE entering in certain situations? Mincey v. Arizona (1978) (J. Stewart): Police set up a drug bust. Plain clothed. Knocked on the door but did not announce they were police officers. Individual opened the door and the officer slipped inside and moved through the apartment. The individual tried to shut the door but the other officers prevented that. Officer entered the bedroom and a volley of shots ended with the Officer being killed and other officers being injured. After initial drug search, homicide detectives arrived and did an extensive 4 day search resulting in the seizing of hundreds of objects. No warrant was ever obtained Rule: The right to warrantless search depends on the scope of the exigency It doesnt matter how serious the crime is, but the nature and scope of the exigency that determines the ability to continue with a warrantless search Test: What is the exigency? What is the scope of the exigency? Temporally and spacially When did the exigency begin? When did the exigency end? Analysis: Stewart disregards the States arguments (know the state's argument) and says that a four day search is too much, and to accept the State's argument is to pre-convict him of the crime. It is not a minimal search or intrusion. A four day search is incredibly extensive and outside the exigency States Arg: Forfeited his right to privacy Privacy waived De minimus because subsequent search was constitutionally irrelevant Homicide should be under exigent cir exception. Ct rejects Too much of slippery slope b/c then were do you draw the line, rape? Burglary? We should give more flexibility to law enforcement b/c it is easier and more efficient to not req them to go get the warrant. Ct rejects Whole point of 4th amm is check/balances. Should not disregard that just to make it easier for cops. Efficiency Is not a reason for permitting a warrantless search, the Warrant Clause, by its very nature, makes investigations less "simple" Step by Step Permissible for first cop to enter? There was PC but no warrant. However, that is okay b/c the cop pretended to be drug buyer and D invited him back = CONSENT (and if have consent then not justification is needed) Permissible for other cops to enter? There was PC but no warrant. However, that is okay b/c once shots were fired = Emergency which is an exigent cir. There are two diff searches, are those okay? First search, they were worried about safety so exists under emeregency exception. Second search is an investigatory search [the issue here] Have PC but no warrant. Can detectives claim exigent cir (emergency here)? Ct defined the scope of exigent cir justifying the search by stating the following: Rule ( Once the exigent cir dissipates, the warrant req kicks back in HERE, once all was secured then the exigent cir (the emergency) dissipated so detectives needed to go get a warrant to do the 4 day search. Feasible for detectives to get warrant? YES Well cant get right away but that doesnt matter, you can secure the crime scene while go get warrant so no one affects it. Holding: For the initial search, there was probable cause to enter the apartment and the brief safety sweep because it was exigent circumstances. 2nd search was a 4th amm vio = suppress evid found during the 4 day search. B/c warrants are generally desirable there must be a very good reason for NOT req a warrant ( there was no compelling reason here for no warrant Police Created Exigency If create exigency through something illegal under 4th amendment, then cannot have a lawful exclusion under 4th amendment. Part of the debate is how cops use the knock and talk procedure and whether that procedure is permissible or not By knocking and talking, cops are trying to generate PC or get consent by talking to you in a way they are trained to do so that you find it harder to refuse consent (Draytonb) Cops are trained to keep you talking b/c if talking then you arent leaving so could maybe get consent or delay until drug dog gets there, etc. This is a low violence tactic Also note context ( your willingness to talk to certain people at your door signifies a lot about you gender, immigration status, kids v. adults, etc The rule in Kentucky v. King concerns whether the police may benefit from creating the exigency justifying the search. The question presented in King is whether exigency exceptions req police to NOT have created the exigency and what does that exactly mean?  Kentucky v. King (2011) (J. Alito): cops made a sting where followed suspect back to apt but failed to see which apt (left or right) went back to. Smelled weed coming from door on right. Goes to that door, cops knock loudly and does loud/commanding announcement. Heard shuffling around/movement inside = exigent cir that could be destroying evid so cops forced way in quickly. The issue presented here is that in some sense, cops announcing their presence always creates an exigency Remember PC Is just fair probability that criminal activity is going on Thus, didnt even need the drug smell to have PC that the suspect was in one of the apts Analysis: Court rejects intent standard. Court notes that in some sense the police announcing their presence always creates an exigency for the guilty. But, court does not care whether exigency was the goal of or the by-product of the police activity because that would require investigating the officers intent. D argued that cops K/A in this way b/c they were TRYING to create an exigency so that they dont have to get a warrant. Ct Rejected held that cops did NOT create an exigency here. Held that So long as the cops do not engage in conduct that vio or threatens to violate the 4th amm BEFORE the exigent cir, then the cops actions were deemed re and there is no 4th amm violation Example of threaten to violate ( if you dont open door, we will smash it If do this = vio 4th amm BEFORE exigent cir b/c causes the commotion. Example of vio of 4th amm ( lack of PC, break down the door (impermissible entry), seize them, etc Ct basically held that so long as cops not engaging in conduct that suggests they will knock the door down then they are good This is why imp to ask if they way they K/A = seizure b/c basically same deal as knocking down the door Note that this is asking if the conduct was re meaning mind of this cop does not matter b/c obj test what a re person would think based on this conduct. This reasoning seems circular ( so long as police dont vio the 4th amm then dont vio the 4th amm Ct also lists bunch of good reasons why cops dont want to get warrant RIGHT after est PC: May want to just speak to the person in there May want to ask for consent May want the search to be broader May want more evid before submitting affidavit May not want to disclose that there is an investigation going on Ct also used the re innocent person type of view like in Drayton Held that K/A gives assurance, not discomfort Weird result of this cts holding Best option for suspects so that exigent cir are not incurred ( is to remain calm, dont make sudden movements, and ask the cops to leave Also, ct stated that the suspects need not let the cops in or talk to them This suggests that there is a right NOT to cooperateweird. Standard/Rule: Legitimacy Standard Legitimate 4th Amendment Activity: So long as the police do not violate the 4th Amendment, they may proceed without a warrant even though they (deliberately) cause the suspects subsequent exigency-creating conduct Illegitimate 4th Amendment Activity: If the police somehow violate the suspects fourth amendment rights in creating the exigency, any subsequent search without a warrant is unlawful Innocent suspect confronted with the police knocking at her door is to stay calm, make no sudden movements, and tell the police to leave. Community Caretaking The emergency aid justification permits entry into a home without a warrant. Courts distinguish between protective and investigatory functions of the police. Crime fighting/investigatory(probable cause is necessary Protective(Reasonableness (objective w/o officers subj. motivation) When caretaking police are in non-adversarial relation to the people that they are interfering with. Thus, the std is lower than PC. Cop just need reasonableness As long as it is re to believe that there is an emergency situation as to a risk to the welfare of people or an indiv then cops can enter under this rationale. Compare Wilson v. Layne (429-30): media who enter residence as part of police ride-along violate the residents 4th Amendment rights Media are working for their own purposes, not police investigative or protective purposes Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) (J. Roberts): 3 Am, party a number of underage drinkers. Party going on, cops get noise complaint. They go to the house and knock on the door, but no one answers, they see there is no one in the front of the house, but hear noise so they go around back. They see 2 youths drinking in backyard. They go to backyard and through glass door to inside home they saw a fight ensue where an adolescent is getting pinned by "adults" and punched. They walked up to the screen door and announced their presence but no one heard. They entered the party and stopped the fight and charged a number of people with crimes Analysis: Difference between protective and investigatory functions of the police. Protective function is at a reasonableness sufficient standard to ensure compliance with 4th, whereas investigatory requires Probable cause. This is because protective function is not adversarial with relation to the people. RULE: As long as it is reasonable to believe that there is an emergency situation as to risk to the welfare of the people or an individual, then cops can enter under. Defendant Argument: cops wanted to come in to arrest (investigatory function) and not to protect (community caretaking), thus needed to est PC which the cops failed to do. Ct rejected b/c the std is reasonableness so this is an obj std. Do NOT consider the cops subjective motivations. Hold ( it is re for a cop to believe it was necessary to enter quickly to stop the current fight and thus protect the people. Should cops be able to keep the investigative fruits received while in the house under the community caretaking rationale? Ex) Go into home b/c of community caretaking deal but then find other illegal activity, can cops take that evid even though lacked PC from the get go? Many cts take the stance that should allow cops to keep this type of evid b/c absence of law enforcement motive (investigatory motive) then the harms of the intrusion are mitigated Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984): Case in 1970s where guy was drunk driving, caused an accident, and fled the scene to go home. Cops follow him and get into the house to make him take a BAC test. Important during this time, drunk driving was non-criminal and only punishable by a fee Cops tried to claim that they could enter b/c of exigency that evid. could dissipate over time (drug level decreases in blood) Hold ( if crime was sufficiently minor and doesnt involve jail time then cops CANNOT use the exigency req to get into someones home This is the only case where ct measures exigencies by how serious crime was. Only case where ct decides crime is SO minor the precludes exigency Rule: The court must balance the offense with the 4th amendment intrusion to determine if it is a violation. When the governments interest is only to arrest for a minor offence, th[e] presumption of unreasonableness is difficult to rebut. But the manner in which the interest are framed may be determinative. Welch is limited to its facts Welsh is a case about both home entry and evidence of drunk driving The drunk driving cases present a variety of issues Schmerber: permitted warrantless blood test in hospital Missouri v. McNeely (2013): requires warrant for blood alcohol test unless exigency exists Birchfield v. N. Dakota (2016): no warrant required for breathalyzer Ryburn v. Huff (pur curiam): Cops hear rumors that kid is planning to shoot up a school, go to house to question the kid. When they go, occupants dont answer door, answers phone but hangs up on cops. Finally the mom goes out of the house to talk with cops. Cops ask if there are guns in the home. Mom answer by running back to the home. Cops think all of this is weird so they enter the home. TEST: Safety rational while taken in isolation they may indicate no danger, but taken as a whole it could give a reasonable basis of believing immanent threat of violence that justifies entry into the home. Reasonable basis for believing there is an immanent threat of violence justifies entry into home Judge from perspective of officer at the scene Analysis: Here, police treat legal refusals to cooperate as evidence of dangerousness In King it basically says that people have a right not to comply However, here, ct held that ( it is re for a cop who has to make a split decision in response to the weird stuff mom was doing to believe that entry was necessary to protect others and themselves from injury (re to believe guns in house) Thus, even if moms refusal is lawful could still be suspicious enough to warrant these types of actions. Seems to conflict with King Ct chastises the 9th cir for failing to credit the cops training nd experience (Ornelas) Thus, weird behavior + the tip = could lead re officer to conclude there was an emergency and could be guns in the home that could hurt people Ct didnt address 4th amm vio but seems like ct would find no vio here b/c compared the case to Stuart which involved community caretaking and only req a re std. Plain View Plain view doctrine is about the seizure of items without a warrant The police still require probable cause to seize the item in plain view Police still require a legitimate 4th Amend. Reason for being in a position to search (and to seize) A search warrant or the nature of the exigency limits the scope of a police search Probable cause to search is limited to purposes specified in the warrant or by the exigency Things the police see in plain view may enable officers to develop probable cause to search more or to expand the scope of probable cause Plain view does not authorize the underlying search, only seizure of the evidence that was legally seen Plain View Doctrine=Objective Applies whether the officer gains access to the seized evidence deliberately or inadvertently. To seize evid outside the scope of the search, PC (or illegality) must be immed apparent Note: this doctrine is about the warrantless seizure of items Three Major Cases New York v. Class (1986) (seizure of item in car): An officer may seize an item if they are:In a legally authorized position from which to; Legally gain physical control over item seized Arizona v. Hicks (1987): Probable cause is related to specified purposes: Once purpose/justification for entry and search expires, so does probable cause Bright line rule that items may be seized only where illegality, and therefore probable cause immediately apparent Otherwise, even minimal movement of item without a warrant constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment Horton v. California (1990): Rejects inadvertence part of original plain view doctrine (see Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)) Motive of officer in conducting search irrelevant Arizona v. Hicks: There was a shooting through the floor. Cops show up to search for shooters/victims/etc. During search, cop notices stereo equipment that looked out of place. Cop moved the equipment in order to locate the serial number on the bottom so could tell it to headquarters turned out the stuff was stolen as part of armed robbery so seized it. Big issue here = the warrantless seizure of an item. Is the serial number like the vin number in Cass? Initial Entry/Search of the apt = Justified by gunshot b/c caused PC to enter to look for weapons and no need for warrant b/c exigent cir PC to search is limited to purposes specified in the warrant or by the exigency. Here, PC was to look for weapons so small handgun or large rifle thus must make sure looking in places that can find those things Turning over the equipment to find the serial number is NOT permissible b/c equip lying flat so likely wont find gun under. Justification for movin the equip? ( Gvt WONT argue based on original PC BUT will instead argue indep PC to believe the equip is stolen b/c seems out of place Under Mincey, this justification would not work b/c EVEN IF PC to believe stereo stuff stolen, might still req warrant to seize the item. So Gvt does argue that indep PC b/c seems out of place ( Plain View Doctrine Help? Plain view does NOT authorize searches, it only auth seizures of evid legally (PC + warrant or exception (Plain view is exception)) seen. True that cops might develop PC to search due to the things they see in plain view BUT the issue is that cops can only seize items via Plain View when PC is immediately apparent Thus, if have PC then get to seize under this doctrine b/c it is an exception to the warrant req Note: here, lifting the equip was not a seizure b/c ct said it was too temporary. The action was instead a search b/c did not lift it to take it to custody, they lifted it to look for registration number to see if need to seize it or not. Hold (Maj J. Scalia) ( Thinking that it was out of place = just re suspicion which is less than PC. Thus, no PC to search (to lift equip and see the number). Plain View does NOT help here. Plain View Doctrine doesnt help b/c to determine if item is contraband (if there is PC to believe item is contraband), cop has to search item. Thus, here there is re suspicion that stereo is stolen BUT to est PC, have to move the stereo to check the registration number and moving the stereo = a SEARCH (which is done with no PC) Now if KNOW stereo stolen OR there is PC that the stereo see is stolen (like the registration number on TOP of the stereo so no need to lift it) THEN can seize it under Plain View. So if know or PC to believe contraband then can use plain view. B/c if see that it is plainly illegal without having to move anything = NOT a search. Can Gvt Argue Cass? Ct in Cass held that moving the papers = minimal intrusion and so NOT a search. BUT moving the equip here is DIFF b/c there, the public is req by law to display the vinn #. This is not the case here. Dissents Dissent (OConner) there is a diff between a cursory inspection that involves minor mvts (like there) and a full blown search. And should allow cops to do minor, cursory searches based on re suspicion. Diff than what Cass was saying Ct here disagreed held that EVEN minimal mvt of an item = a search Will not ack that diff levels of searches just is or is not a search. If it is a search then it is covered by 4th amm and if not a search then no covered by 4th amm. Know Scalia wrote this b/c he likes bright line rules. Dissent (Powell) Argues that this handicaps the cops b/c if have re suspicion (more than hunch) that it is contraband BUT dont have PC then cant get warrant b/c dont have PCso cop just has to walk away. Powell thinks that this will cause an incentive for cops to create fake evid to get PC (accidentally knock over stereo so number face up). Scalia argues that consti is not mean to make life easier Again, seeing tension as to what is good policing Side 1: Getting re suspicion is enough = good policing Side 2: Not enough, we req you to do more. Go get more evid that will lead to PC = THAT is good policing. There are diff ways to search Both of the below are searches just diff kinds So here moving the equip to lift up and see number = low tech search But if had tech that could see through tables (equip sitting on) = high tech search Ct fails to resolve the issue with inadvertency (the rule of plain view doctrine under Coolidge) BUT will be addressed in Horton ( Even the minimal movement of an item without a warrant constitutes a search Plain view imposes an objective, bright-line rule requiring probable cause to search or seize an item A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable (474) A dwelling-place search, no less than a dwelling-place seizure, requires probable cause, and there is no reason in theory or practicality why application of the plain view doctrine would supplant that requirement. (475) No exceptions for cursory searches or rummaging In these instances, the search is simultaneously a seizure The officer needs to exert control over property to move it Horton( Contemplates an objective test for probable cause to seize Officers motive for conducting the search is irrelevant Allows officers to benefit from windfalls, and permit end runs around constitutional rules Under Coolidge, even if see contraband in plain view, cannot seize unless item falls within scope of what warrant specified. This case overrules that. Rejects the inadvertence part of the original plain view doctrine Cops motives for conducting the search is irrelevant Doesnt matter if turning up the item was inadvertent or advertent All that matters is item discovered by a cop, in plain view, when cop is legally entitled to be in the place they are searching. Which rejects the subj approach to req cops to adhere to the search warrant. This obj test benefits the cops b/c allows them another way to get around the bounds of the warrant. Caretaking Case with Grandma ( cops go in to check that ailing grandma is safe. They go to basement and find weed production plant. When they saw this = plain view doctrine applied b/c this plant was plainly illegal and b/c in plain view = no search. Ct held that they were able to seize it all. Automobiles The automobile exception is an exception to the warrant requirement Probable cause is still required, and determines the scope of the search The exception permits searches of cars and containers based on different rationales Exigent circumstances Diminished privacy interest in car due to states hyper-regulation of cars Originalism concerns The automobile exception distinguishes between whether a container is inside or outside the car; but not among containers inside the car Once the container is in the car, the warrant exception applies to both the car and the container The automobile exception does not confer a right to search containers outside the car without a warrant Automobile exception makes it easier to search inside cars without a warrant Acevedo and Houghton draw the line between inside (no warrant) and outside (warrant) of the car. Original Cases Carroll v. United States (1925)during prohibition times, cars new, being used to transport alcohol Mobility generates exigent circumstances: warrantless search permissible because car can be quickly moved out of locality Chambers v. Maroney (1970): Exigency assessed at time probable cause established Car can be moved to police station for search at later time (PC was attached when car first seized) Container SpecificWarrant required to search container United States v. Chadwick (1977): expectation of privacy in personal effects greater than in car Held: Cannot search trunk deposited outside of car. Need a warrant. No exigency because easy to store the locker while go get a warrant Cops thought drugs in footlocker and had PC to believe this, saw Ds put it in trunk. Cops stop D before drive car. Searched car under this exception AND opened/searched container claiming that auto exception still applies United States v. Sanders (1979): police cannot create exigency by waiting until trunk placed in car Exigency assessed at time probable cause established Cops have PC to believe drugs in luggage. Wait for D to put in car and wait until start driving and THEN stop them. Search car and container claiming this auto exception. Hold ( cops CANNOT create the exigency by waiting until trunk placed in car Cops did it this way (wait until drive off) to try to get around Chadwick but ct held ( STILL no exigency since that is assessed at time PC is est (before see luggage go into the car and drive off) Ct held that they dont care about the difference as to whether car moving or not its the same deal ( cops cant force the auto exception. United States v. Robbins (1981): paper bag is as much a personal effect as a suitcase Cops find a paper bag in the car and open/search it claiming auto exception. CA v. Acevedo Cops set up sting to get a guy who was being sent a package of weed in the mail, got him. But also saw his friend walk into his house and come out with a full bag. Thus, PC to believe he has weed in the bag, but issue is cops didnt have warrant to search the bag. But THEN see friend put bag in car and cops wait till he starts to drive to pull him over. Searched the car and the bag in the car. Diff Stds: If Sanders was in effect then cops would not be able to search the bag b/c cops created the exigent cir by waiting until friend got in the car and drove off. Cops instead could have seized, stored, and got warrant to search. This way makes sense b/c if see bag outside and cant search it there then also cant search when just put bag in car. If Ross was in effect then cops CAN search the bag in the car. Had to look at the diff cases above and decide which to go with had to decide WHERE to draw the line Hold ( ratifies Ross and states that if can search car without a warrant then can also search any containers in the car without warrant. Thus, draws the line between stuff inside car and stuff outside the car Thus, search here as to the bag WAS okay b/c PC and auto exception applies. This holding: Overrules Sanders restriction on state created exigencies Rejects object-based restrictions on in-car searches Like the distinction as to luggage, personal effects, etc as seen in Robbins doesnt matter. ANY and ALL packages in the car may be searched w/o a warrant. HOWEVER, Chadwicks warrant req to search containers OUTSIDE of the car survives Acevedo still in effect. Note: Cts in many of these cases just state how the rule makes no sense; thus, even after Acevedo, can still argue to change std and go back to Sanders type of rule. So long as D is keeping contents from public view (whether in paper bag or suitcase or footlocker) then should get the SAME amount of 4th amm protection. Hold ( Like Chadwick and Sanders, need warrant before search the container in the car. Car-General: No Warrant Required to Search Container United States v. Ross (1982): probable cause to search car without warrant includes permission to search any container in which item may be found If there is PC to search a car w/o warrant then can search the ENTIRE car w/o a warrant, including any containers inside the car. Uses rationale that if allowed to open glove compartment = like opening container in car; thus, should be allowed to search w/o a warrant ANY container in car Acevedo does away with object-based restrictions on in car-searches Overrules Sanders restriction on state-created exigencies Bright-line rule establishes that no warrant is required for in-car searches Chadwicks warrant requirement for containers outside car survives Passengers are treated the same as drivers when traveling in cars Probable cause to search the car is based only on evidence about driver The Court refuses to distinguish searches of drivers and passengers property Ybarra: probable cause to search bar and bartender does not include customer/bystander Maryland v. Pringle: passengers are not bystanders but engaged in common enterprise with driver Wyoming v. Hougton cop stops car and asks everyone to exit and then sees syringe in drivers pocket (driver is a man) so cop starts thinking drugs. Cop starts searching car and in backseat finds a purse. Cop searches the purse. Finds drugs. Here the PC to search the car is based ONLY on evid about the driver (his syringe), so can that PC be extended to the passenger since cop searched her purse? Two Issues: PC to believe that the purse is the drivers? If so then there is PC to search purse b/c PC to think driver has drugs and drugs are small enough to go into purse. If no PC to believe that purse is drivers THEN we need independent PC to search the purse. Have that here? Arguable that the needle marks on her arm might give indep PC but here gvt does not argue that. This argument = close call. Hard b/c would a re person know track marks = use drugs or that cop with experience/training would know this? (Ornelas) Arguments D argue ( PC to search drivers effects is NOT PC to search passengers effects Gvt argue ( Should be able to search passenger as well b/c they are all engaged in a common enterprise Another probable argument that was not discussed ( Under a property analysis the purse belongs to the passenger and NOT driver and that is in fact her effect and so cop intruded on her prop Purse is an effect and depending on how stringently we want to make the prop claim, we can ask if there is a reason to trespass on prop JUST b/c of common enterprise Common Enterprise Ct agreed with Gvt Argue and held that if people engage in common enterprise then can search passengers prop and drivers prop (anything in the car basically) How to know if in a common enterprise? ( Answer these questions Where are they sitting? If you are in backseat v. front seat = makes a diff. More re to believe common enterprise if in front seat. What are they doing? Are they doing something together or not? Ct Distinguishes btwn bystanders in Ybarra and passengers in Pringle Ybarra search of a bar where officer had PC and warrant to search bar and the bartender. But then officer searched ALL the customers in the bar and found drugs on customer. Ct held that customers were not in common enterprise w/ bartender b/c they are just bystanders. They arent all getting drunk together not as tight knit of a group. So cant extend PC of bartender to the customers. Pringle passengers are NOT bystanders but are instead engaged in common enterprise with driver Thus, PC to search driver is now extended to PC to search car and containers and passengers Ct thought that the common enterprise was drug dealing, not transportation (Thus, common enterprise is MUCH less likely in taxi or uber) More expansive understanding of right to search Here, had 4 people sitting in front seat together, traveling in car. Front Seat and ct held that that people traveling in car together could be in common enterprise (dont really elaborate on this in order to agree or disagree with Pringle) THUS ( common enterprise there. The Objective Test Maj (Scalia) & dissent (Stevens) debates on what re means in 4th amm Stevens argues that re means ( warrant and PC (think neutral mag judge is imp) This is the trad view but it loses. Scalia argues in favor that re in 4th amm means re std see if act is re or not. So if have PC have to ask if re for someone to believe that drugs in car and that could be common enterprise when see syringe, track marks, and 4 people sitting in the front of the car. Gates tells us std = re person (obj). However, gvt will also argue Ornelas and try to squeeze in cops training/experience to drop the hurdle bit more. Hold ( ct refuses to distinguish searches of drivers and passengers prop. Thus, ct extends PC so that if have PC to search the car at all then can search anything in the car, doesnt matter who owns it (b/c common enterprise) Arrests Probable cause to arrest=fair probability to believe that the person committed a crime Compare with: probable cause for search=fair probability that the area or object searched contains evidence of a crime Rules for arrest in different places Public U.S. v. Watson (1976): No warrant required to arrest when crime is (1) felony or (2) misdemeanor committed in presence of officer Private Peyton v. N.Y (1980): Arrest warrant required to arrest in arrestees own home Stegald v. U.S (1981): Arrest warrant and search warrant required to arrest in someone elses home. Authority to arrest depends solely on the fact that a crime was committed The severity of the crime is irrelevant (objective) Courts treat normal custodial arrests as minor imposition on personal dignity Arrest Process and Warrant Requirementthe police must still show probable cause to arrest Depends on when the individual is arrested Depends on the place of the arrest As a constitutional matter, a police officer: May arrest a person in a public place without a warrant, even if it is practicable to secure one If misdemeanor, then cop can only arrest in public if based on PC if person commits that misdemeanor in front of the cop. If felony, then cop can arrest in public based on PC whether or not the crime was committed in front of the cop Is this still the case? May not arrest a person in his home without an arrest warrant, absent exigent circumstances or consent May not arrest a person in another persons home without a search, and perhaps an arrest, warrant, absent exigent circumstances or consent Arrest in Public Anomaly in Powells concurrence in Watson Security of the person seems to rank lower than the security of houses person and effects Seizure of property is allowed without a warrant when there are exigent circumstances but the standard is reasonableness seizure of a person without a warrant is permitted United States v. Watson(1976) (White, J.) (arrest in Public) The debate between majority (White) and dissent (Marshall) is whether warrant is required for making an arrest in public. Dissent argue ( if have PC that guy committed crime at T1 then can go get warrant, come back, and STILL have PC to arrest guy b/c PC will continue to T2 and the future. And if the events are too rapid to where not feasible to get warrant then the doctrine of exigent circumstances is still there to help Thus, saying we should apply how we address searches to how we address public arrests too. Need PC + warrant OR exigent circumstances. Also, requiring a warrant imposes a neutral arbiter between the competitive cops and the civilians Majs argue( We should NOT extend the std for searches to arrests in public b/c passage of time will hurt PC If have PC to arrest guy at time 1, but then retreat to go get warrant then the passing of time could grant disconfirming evid so then at time 2 you make the arrest after getting the warrant but turns out that NOW dont have PC. Disagrees with the third party needed to regulate, cops can have some degree of autonomy in this situation. This is the way CL has always done it. (Powells originalist view) Hold ( NO! Warrant is NOT req for an arrest in public Search req PC + Warrant/Exception Arrest in public req ONLY PC Cops have categorical permission to arrest anyone that cop sees in public if have PC to believe he/she has committed a criminal activity. Bright line rule. Thus, no need to see if there is an exigency to knock off warrant req, no need to go thru the re test required to see if exigency or not BUT cops must STILL have PC re person would find fair probability to believe that the suspect committed some sort of crime (Gates) IMP this is ONLY for arrests in public; arrests in private is diff. THUS ( Watson kills off the warrant req for arrests in public and give us instead a categorical exception to the warrant req Thus, shows the move towards warrant preference rather than warrant requirement. IMP ( this is NOT just arrests in public, applies ALSO for overall seizures in public. Arrest in Private Arrests in Private To arrest someone in private, cop has to have an arrest warrant. Arrest Suspect in Suspects OWN Home Cop still needs the arrest warrant. BUT no need to have search warrant. Can go in and arrest suspect in the suspects home. Different if suspect is in third partys home. Arrest Suspect in Third Parties Home Payton ct held that when arresting suspect in someone elses home, then need a third-party search warrant to look for the person in the home (b/c invading owners privacy) AND an arrest warrant directed at arresting the suspect Thus, need PC + Arrest Warrant + Third Party Search Warrant Thus, need search warrant to get LEGALLY in the house However, note that that even if have search warrant, if cop starts looking in drawers that are too small for a person to fit in = THAT is an illegal search. Thus, if just have arrest warrant then cannot go into third partys home to arrest suspect UNLESS there is an exigent circumstance. Ex) Suspect is in his own home, sees cop and runs to third partys home. Cops only had arrest warrant. However, CAN follow the suspect into the third partys home even w/o search warrant here b/c hot pursuit = exigent circumstance. Other Examples To Think About However, if have third party search warrant (and no arrest warrant) and find that person then under the Plain View Doctrine cop can seize that person. If see someone outside do an illegal activity and then they go inside. Nature of that activity could grant the exigent cir to get the cop legally in the house and find person = Plain View Doctrine get to seize them. Thus cops will want to arrest suspects in public rather than wait until privacy b/c in public, no need for warrant = easier. Consent A consent to search or seize is valid if (1) the consent was given voluntarily (2) there was no coercion and (3) the party providing the consent has control or authority over the place being searched to allow consent (third-party doctrine and apparent authority) Consent permits the target of the search to determine the scope of the search Overview Shneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973): The police do not require either probable cause or a warrant to conduct a search where the target voluntarily consents Burden on state to prove voluntariness State need not inform individual that they are free to leave Ohio v. Robinette (1993): no need to inform suspect that they could refuse consent after valid seizure ended Use totality of circumstances to determine whether consent was voluntary Florida v. Jimeno (1991): scope of search objective: what a reasonable person would have understood, given the exchange between officer and individual Regulating searches is difficult in rapidly changing circumstances on the street Minimally intrusive searches have a high law enforcement value at low privacy cost Confirm or disconfirm criminal activity Brief, public, limited scope The problem is finding a 4th Amendment framework to permit low-intensity searches Issue for these cts is finding a 4th amm framework to allow low-intensity searches while still protecting privacy b/c under Hicks, something is either a search or not a search (the end). Solution ( using consent to place the search outside of the 4th amm so that if suspect consents to a search THEN cops can go ahead and search. Voluntariness An individual consents when the police do not use threats to produce consent, but the individual may not realize they have a choice to refuse consent Remember Justice Kennedy in Drayton: Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels inferences of coercion. Scheckloth v. Bustamonte(1973) (Stewart, J.) (California case) pulled over for a traffic vio, there were 6 in the car at 2 am. Cop asked if could search car. A passenger consents. The search was very congenial (drier even helped him a bit). Cop then found stolen checks in the trunk. Driver arrested. Traffic violation = misdemeanor in public Was there PC to seize the driver of the car? Yes, PC to seize the driver (make him stop and give citation) b/c of traffic violation so driver is not free to leave. BUT PC to seize is NOT extended to PC to search the car why cop asked permission. RulesVoluntariness is determined by the totality of the circumstances (what are the factors) Consent is not valid unless uncoerced and given voluntarily. Was the consent voluntary? Any evid of coercion No evid that it was involuntary no threat of arrest, drive said sure go ahead, cops said it was all congenial. No evid of coercion here. Consent is deemed to be given if a re person believes that person gave consent Shrug could be enough. D argue Argue 1 ( That HE did not consent, passenger did. Not a big part of this case Ct briefly stated that as long as third parties may grant consent to searches on behalf of another as long as they have the auth to do so Here, states that third party must actually have auth to consent BUT this changes in Rodriguez Argue 2 (The consent was not voluntary b/c did not know there was an alternative to refuse consent. The big one here. What is this argument really getting at? ( Consti waiver argument Should require such waiver to be knowingly and intelligently given Dissent (Marshall) Agrees with Ds second argument. Argues that in order to voluntarily give consent, one has to be able to choose between allowing the search and not AND to CHOOSE one must know that there is a choice. Knowledge of choice ( Choose ( Voluntary Consent The consent is not voluntary if D does not know that there is a choice. No intelligent waiver here b/c did not know had the right NOT to waive. Argue v. that ( Sometimes we consent w/o thinking of whether there is a choice but still a choice = still voluntary Ex) the choice to get out of the left or right side of the bed just choose, dont think about it BUT still a voluntary choice Thus, argues that the cops must state that there is an option to refuse the consent. Maj (Stewart) Disagrees with dissent b/c difference between in trial and on the streets. Miranda was closer to in trial than on the streets. Trial = formal/predictable and streets = not formal/not predictable. Thus, unre to expect cops to have to give full blown speech to every suspect when on the street so events changing rapidly. See it as a hard thing to ask of cops. Ct balanced the polices need for searches v. avoiding coercion Sided with the polices need. Also, ct treats non-custodial searches (not trying to arrest) as minor impositions on persons. The Rule Ct Adopted ( a voluntariness std determined by the totality of the cir Cops need not give ANY info at all. All that matters is that consent is voluntarily given based on the totality of the cir This totality of cir test gives little guidance as to what makes consent voluntary or not. How the ct talked about this std actually seems MORE restrictive than the categorical req of warning suspect of their choice, BUT later cases broaden it out. Diff Views on Consent J. Stewart here thought consent is GOOD b/c if do search and find nothing = then cops wont both you again (win/win) Kennedy in Drayton also thought consent was good b/c people expressly consenting to police action = the people directly participating in the gvt. This view thinks so long as cops get voluntary, uncoerced consent then whats the problem? = good policing Others think that consent is NOT so good b/c just an excuse to do low level harassment of minorities This side of the argument thinks consent = Worrisome display of power, NOT Good Policing. Here, all 6 passengers of car were minority. Might not be low level harassment b/c of this but those that disagree w/ maj think should consider it Physical v. Psychological Std If think involuntary only if on physical side then agree with majority. If think psychological coercion counts then will agree with dissent. This holding makes it even EASIER on cops The auto exception allows cops to search entire car (including containers) as long as the cop has PC. Well what if cop doesnt have PC? ( Just get consent that is voluntary (dont have to let the D know of their right to refuse) and not coerced. Ct here thinks this is okay b/c we WANT these type of investigations, and consents is a good way to go about it even if got it by psychological pressure Limitation of Consents The civilian gets to consent to the search AND gets to monitor the search as it happens Drayton stated that the beauty of consents is that the consenter can call off the consent whenever they want (revoke it), even if mid-search. If this happens, then cop has to stop searching. Third Party Consent: Apparent Authority Overview Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990): any tenant with apparent authority may to consent to search of premises Person consenting need not have actual authority Rule ( As long as cop re believes that the third party has auth to consent, even he is wrong, then that consent on behalf of another is valid. If this is the case then that third person can consent and can revoke consent Thus, here consent was valid Viewed this issue like White where assume risk if you expose something to third party. Follows the assumption of risk analysis Factual mistakes: police mistake about facts can create power to consent because it is objectively reasonable mistake of facts as to the co-tenants status as a current resident Legal mistakes: police mistake about legal authority cannot create power to consent E.g., police cant be let in by landlord, hotel clerk, etc. because they typically lack legal authority to consent to the search. Minnesota v. Olsen (1991): mere bystanders lack apparent authority unlike overnight houseguests customary expectation of courtesy or deference afforded a houseguest Georgia v. Randolph (2006) (SOUTER): the police may not search if any co-tenant with equal apparent authority refuses consent hub and wife fighting. Wife says hub has drugs in home. Cops ask hub consent to search home = refuses. Asks wife = grants consent. Hold ( consent not valid. Hub had auth too and he refused = should have respected that. IF there are multiple people with auth to consent/refuse then both equally have the power to do so. One does not trump the other. Reasoning ( under Olsen held that overnight guests may refuse admission of people to their guests premises b/c of hosts courtesy. And here took that courtesy and spun it into widely shared social expectations ( So that cohabitees of joint auth may BOTH consent to search and may BOTH refuse search and cops should respect both. On the same note ( If cops start to search b/c re believe, mistakenly or not, that third party has auth to grant consent and they do grant consent then that is fine BUT if the other person with auth (either other owner or actual owner) shows up and revokes that consent by saying get out = if re to believe THAT person has auth to do so then cops must STOP searching. When two or more parties disagree over giving police consent to search, then the police lack the right to search Co-tenant can veto search even if other tenant agrees Permits cohabitees joint authority to refuse search or reach some voluntary accommodation However, tenant must be present for effective refusal to consent Even if the police themselves are responsible for removal Fernandez v. California (2014): absent occupant cannot prevent search over co-tenants consent Objective test: does not matter why absent, including due to police action On the same note ( If cops start to search b/c re believe, mistakenly or not, that third party has auth to grant consent and they do grant consent then that is fine BUT if the other person with auth (either other owner or actual owner) shows up and revokes that consent by saying get out = if re to believe THAT person has auth to do so then cops must STOP searching.  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/4ADCEF74-8734-944C-8D1A-24B18BEF93AB.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Reasonableness-Fourth Amendment Seizures Only require reasonable suspicion (not a warrant) Stop and Frisk Under Terry a stop-and-frisk is a seizure, but a frisk does not require probable cause. Instead all that is needed is reasonable suspicion--a stop is short of an arrest, so the law of arrest(and probable cause) does not applyas long as the stop only lasts a reasonable amount of time. Reasonable suspicion requires some articulable basis for finding behavior suspicions and is justified if (1) crime is suspected AND (2) that it indicates danger to the police (terry stop is a limited frisk for weapons, after which, the stop must cease) Reasonable suspicion is an articulable basis for finding behavior suspicious Future, current or past crime; protect police from physical danger; limits search to frisk for weapons, after which the stop must cease TEST re Reasonable Suspicion: Balancing Test under the 4th Amendment Balancing the (1) police needs/interests to investigate VS (2) individuals interests Police Needs=effective crime detection and safety(assuring no weapons present) Individual interests=free movement and freedom from police intrusion or harassment NOT Justified on need to gather evidence Stop vs. Arrest Arrest Detention is lengthy It is permissible to search fo evidence May include removal to some other place, including police station Stop: Detention is temporary Detention is necessary to ensure safety Detention is the least intrusive means reasonably available Terry progeny of cases distinguish b/w stops of pedestrians and cars Pedestrians Stop requires particularized reasonable suspicion that suspect is Engaged in criminal activitiy AND concealing a weapon Cars Stop requires: Particularized reasonable suspicion that suspect is committing a traffic offense AND permission to engage in protective search automatically follows So there are two standards to apply when analyzing the lawfulness of a search or seizure: probable cause for ordinary seizures and searches; reasonable suspicion for stops and frisks Stops and frisks are justified by a dangerousness rationale If the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is being planned or is in progress; and that they are in physical danger, then they may briefly detain the suspect and pat them down for weapons lower standard justifies short pat-down searches for weapons where criminal acitivity is suspected Terry v. Ohio(1968) (Warren, C.J.) Guys hanging out on street corner and cops watch them each multiple times walk by store front. Cop asks for their names, they mumble, cop grabs terry, pats him down over clothes and finds gun. Arrests Terry. Was there PC (fair probability) to believe that crime has been or is being committed? NO! b/c we are at T1 (before crime committed) cannot have PC to believe crime committed at T1, only have PC if at T2 (when crime being committed) or T3 (after crime committed. Here, cop just as a suspicion that there could be a potential robbery Robbery = violent crime Thus belief that crime about to be committed justifies the stop (forcing an encounter) and the nature of the crime (robbery = violent) justifies the frisk So if PC was std, there was no PC here, BUT PC is not the std for stop and frisks. This ct introduces re suspicion std into the 4th amm analysis regarding crimes. Ct distinguishes between investigatory activity and order-maintenance activity Investigatory Forcible stop to address questions Seizures that result in a trip to the station & prosecution for crime (arrest) Order-Maintenance Helping drunks Harassing prostitutes Caretaking Thus, ct draws line btwn investigation/arrests AND low-level policing like S&F. Order maintenance does NOT result in arrest so cant be deterred by 4th am What constitutes a seizure Earlier, cts thought that seizures were ONLY arrests. And a stop is just short of an arrest; thus, short of a seizure. Ct here held that seizures within 4th amm is arrests AND investigatory activity on the street that is short of an arrest Thus, a stop IS a seizure and still is within 4th amm. Ct refuses to distinguish between diff types of seizures If not free to leave = seizure = 4th amm triggered. BUT even though a stop is a seizure and a frisk is a type of search, it is under a diff std than arrests (PC), it is under re suspicion std Stop Crime Based Cop may stop IF re suspicion to believe that person is going to commit crime, is committing a crime, or about to commit a crime Frisk Harm Based Cop may frisk if re suspicion to believe that person stopped is dangerous. And pat down search is ONLY for weapons, not evid Above stds = pretty narrow; however, over time, cts will broaden it out. Thus, ct permits a limited search to frisk for weapons after which the stop must cease! Hold ( cop here had re suspicion to both stop and frisk. Like Camara, Ct introduces a Balancing Test into the 4th amm Doctrine Balances: Polices need to search v. individuals interest/invasiveness Police interest here ( effective crime detection AND safety (make sure suspect not armed) Individuals interest freedom from police intrusion/harassment Hold ( Balance tipped in favor of the police Ct holds that minimally intrusive protective searches can be done on less than PC Reasoning ( Encounters are quick and unpredictable. B/c we want proactive policing, have to keep this in mind and give police more discretion to take certain actions when putting themselves in these situations. Re suspicion std is less than PC BUT more than an inarticulate hunch Cant just say that thought they looked shady Re suspicion req SOME articulable basis for finding behavior suspicious The intrusion is justified if: Crime is suspected And that indicates danger to the police Why Some People Dont Like Terry: Decision in Terry is controversial b/c the re std lowers the amt of evid that cops need to engage in a s/s under the 4th amm. Under this lower std = following consequences Easier for cops to stop and frisk, which is being HEAVILY used in minority neighborhoods. Worry about race-based targeting Easier for cops to stop cars for drug interdiction (interception of illegal drugs being smuggled in or out) and doing so in a discretionary way so that race can direct nature of search Gives cops more discretion Mapp worried about cops being able to apply 4th amm at cops own whim Well with this std = discretion and ability to engage in techniques of policing that could seriously intrude into peoples security Why Some People Like Terry: Captures some reality of policing on the streets b/c some encounters = dangerous and cops have a duty to intervene Maj here thinks cops are under a duty to protect public which req them to step in harms way Thus, good to allow cop some limited ability to ensure safety while engaging with people on the street. Concurrence thinks that cops are not ALWAYS req to engage with people on the street Themes of Terry Maj realizes and states that warrants issued upon PC are powerless to deter certain types of police activity where it ends on the street, not in the court room (meaning encounters that do not result in arrest and thus dont go to the ct) Ex) Like cops harassing certain people not deterred by warrants with PC b/c this stuff does not go to ct = exclusionary rule doesnt deter. Thus, ct realistically looks at the limits of judicial power For the FIRST time, the maj discusses race within criminal justice. States it concern that the ct is unable to thoroughly address/fix that issue However, some argue that req PC WOULD or req a free to refuse warning would make a difference Note: there are two diff stds that we must keep in mind for whether s/s lawful PC and Re Suspicion. S/S vary in intrusiveness and where it falls on that spectrum decides which std that we apply. Can apply re suspicion std and count it as a Terry Style S/S if: Search is less intrusive and focused on protection (like finding weapons) In certain cir, minimally intrusive searches lacking PC are justified. Ex) Brief pat down for weapons where criminal activity is suspected. Stop (seizure) is limited in nature (time and place) Length of time for search A stop last only a reasonable length of time United States v. Sharpe (1985): The length of a stop depends upon the presence of reasonable suspicion There is no set period of detention that converts a stop into an arrest To determine whether the time was excessive, we ask whether the police were diligently pursuing a means of investigation likely to resolve the matter one way or another very soon Florida v. Royer (1983): Moving a suspect some distance from the site of the seizure transform the stop into an arrest Stop and Frisk and Cars Cases all pretty much bright line rules Mimms: Under the safety rationale, it is permissible to order driver from car so you can both go somewhere more safe. (4th amm allows this) Wilson: Also, under safety rationale, can order the passenger ALSO to get out of the car Johnson: Also, under safety rationale, can frisk both driver AND passengers Long: Also, under safety rationale, can search for cars passenger compartment Thus, these cases give cops LOTS of leeway Ex) Cop pulls you over for broken taillight well under auto exception cop cannot search in car b/c no PC of crime committed inside car. BUT stopping you for drug interdiction SO can use the terry doctrine to get you out, frisk you, and search compartment all under the guise of safety All along the way of doing this, I am asking questions to try to get PC These searches are just for weapons BUT if I find drugs in compartment = NOW PC to search whole car.  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/0C158242-DADB-444A-AFA6-2FCC28420A9B.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Dangerousness rationale limits the nature of the search/frisk: Plain Feel Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993): frisk for weapons does not permit search for evidence Plain feel frisk for weapons does not justify manipulating suspects pockets (or other containers) Cannot feel to determine whether clothes contained drugs, but if it is obviously contraband then ok to seize Reasonable Suspicion and Informants Tips Police can develop reasonable suspicion from informants tips Reasonable suspicion and informant tips Alabama v White (1990): Informant tip insufficient when No information about informants reliability or basis of knowledge No information about innocent future events only insider could know about (information about easily predictable current circumstances insufficient) Florida v. J.L. (2000): Rejects firearm exception to White Allegation that suspect possess firearms is, on its own, insufficient to justify stop Tip must have moderate indicia of reliability specified in White Navarette v. California (2014): Informants tip sufficient when Anonymous informant calls 911 (presumed to know that the call is traceable) No information about future events (caller reports non-innocent current circumstances) Florida v. J.L. (2000) (Ginsburg, J.) anonymous tip that young black guy standing at bus stop wearing plaid shirt has a gun. Cops act upon tip, see young black guy meeting description at bus stop stop and frisk = find gun. Issue with tips = could be fake. Additional issue with anonymous no accountability Worry that tips like the Swatter videos we watched in class. Ct holds that there must be moderate indicia of reliability that informant KNOWS what they are talking about Indicial of Reliability Reliability and basis of knowledge In White got anonymous tip that woman carrying cocaine and gave bunch of descriptive info. Ct held that cops got re suspicion only AFTER police observed and corroborated the tips Also found where tipster basis of knowledge was. Re suspicion req SOME indep corroboration So ct held re suspicion but ct was STILL uncomfortable with outcome Here, ct is DEF uncomfortable saying this tip grants re suspicion (young black guy etc) BUT maj doesnt factor in race explicitly in its reasoning. Hold ( Not enough to est re suspicion which justifies stop and frisk Navarette v. California(2014) (Thomas, J.) Anonymous 911 call saying truck almost ran her off road and is driving recklessly and stated location of truck and called at certain time. Crime that driver engaged in? Cops say drunk driving Why? b/c if reckless driving then that is not an ongoing crime for them to act on But cops say well this type of driving = likely drunk driving Hold ( re suspicion here that justifies stop and frisk Majs Reasoning Says belive the tip b/c it is reliable since: Comin from 911 sys which can trace calls prank callers would think twice However, didnt deter the swatter callers from youtube videos Tipper named the correct location/time But can be easy to fake! Just hack into their GPS and call up 911. This case makes it easier to prove re suspicion JUST b/c there was a 911 call (even if tipster is anonymous why would they want to remain anonymous, espeicallly here when reporting someone almost wrecked into her?) Thus, the ct dispenses w/ corroboration req if call 911 and name location/time = reliable But note: the more corroboration the more reliable so still can be used, just saying here that dont HAVE to. High Crime Area In Wardlow the type of area (high crime) is part of the totality of the circumstances test After Wardlow, police have easier time justifying frisks in high crime areas as pro-active policing Illinois v. Wardlow(2000) (Rhenquist, C.J.) cops patrolling high crime drug area in 4 large SUVs. Cops are in plain clothes. Cop cant remember if SUVs are marked or not. See guy on street corner with white bag, make eye contact, guy takes off running. They follow after him and stop and frisk find a gun in the bag. Here, ct treated the high-crime area as a part of the totality of the cir Found that one BIG corroborating factor in order to decide if re suspicion or not is PLACE If you are in certain place where there is usually a good amount of criminal activity = big factor to tilt in saying re suspicion. Who designates if area is high crime? the cops, based on their experience. Thus, after Wardlow, cops have an easier time justifying stop and frisks in high crime areas. Ct also treated running away as part of the totality of cir a factor Ct says well person has a right to WALK away BUT if you run then cops entitled to interpret that like evid of a guilty mind. This gives A LOT of power to cops to engage in stop and frisks Well, if you see 4 large SUVs barreling down, which are unmarked and see aggressive looking people in them AND you are in high crim area then there is an argument that running from something else, NOT the cops they dont even know it is the cops (if unmarked cars) Maj did not address this they did not question if guy ran clearly b/c of the presence of cops. BUT it is worth thinking about whether guy was justified in running and what was he running from. Ex) may be good reason why other innocents might run from COPS if in high crime area Not b/c guilty but maybe b/c minority, worry of harassment. Pro-active policing changes stakes of encounters with cops so that causes civilian avoidance behavior that cops may treat as suspicious Policy If you are worried about getting away from the PC req then want police intrusion to be carefully calibrated Political views on this your view on this will differ based on how you think Pro Cop Version Want sophisticated cop to protect public in high crime areas so that kids can play safely and all bad guys caught How cops do this? well know high crime area (b/c cops say so) so will patrol by looking for chances to send a message to bad guys. If you run I can catch and S&F and if find something then I can arrest you I can follow you and if see you do something illegal then S&F which could lead to find more Other version seeing this as harassment. Many dislike Terry stop b/c used as a technique of mass policing However, others like mass policing b/c makes sidewalks safer if you can stomp out low level crime = improves society overall. Also, many think that it unfairly targets minority Terry and Post-Terry cases is imp about POLICING! Do we want to increase their ability to do this stuff so cops can do more BUT this means decrease civil liberty OR do we want to increase civil liberty by making bright line rules that prohibits cops from doing this BUT this means cops can do less on patrol ( how to balance this dilemma is based on your political views as to what you think good and bad policing is. Police Discretion, Street Policing, and Individualized Suspicion Profiling Using a checklist to justify police intervention seems like a good way to control police discretion Problem is to separate out legitimate from illegitimate uses of criminal profiles Profiling potentially limits police arbitrariness by limiting police discretion to the attributes listed in the profile Ex) says this is a drug career profile it is a checklist of sorts and if person satisfies this list then PC/re suspicion to investigate that person. Including racial characteristics on a profile relies on socially distasteful overgeneralizations A broad list can pretextually justify stops motivated by some hidden police agenda An objective approach to the 4th amm CANNOT consider pretextual (excuse to do something that is not accurate) use of profiles b/c can never ask what that specific cops motivation is Not always the case that obj approach applied BUT Whren entrenches the obj approach in the 4th amm When adopt obj approach dont get to ask why cop did what he did. Just get to ask if PC or re suspicion was satisfied if yes, then cops activity is legitimate. Pretextual Policing can conceal worthwhile motivations AND malign motivations Ex) A proactive cop that genuinely wants to solve a crim can use this std that allows pretextual policing to help them solve the crime. For instance, he suspects guy of doing the crime, but cant prove it. So he watches the guy and will arrest him when does any type of random wrongdoing get him that way. Some might think this is good policing, others think bad policing. And here this is worthwhile motivation solve a crime. But could just as easily been bc of racism etc. How Does Profiling Fit with Terry Standards v. Rules Standards are flexible thus, gives decision maker more freedom Terry is more on the standards side. Rules are stricter thus, constrains the decision maker more Profiling is more on the rule side. Well fits b/c profiling comes in to fill the freedom granted by Terry So the law doesnt specify a checklist, BUT cops may want to make OWN checklist to fill in the gap that discretion has opened up It is imp that the POLICE are the ones to fill it. However, have to be careful how you fill it b/c dont want to fill it with something that is explicitly or implicitly racially biased. Racial profiling assumes that the targeted group is more likely to commit crime. BUT non-racial profiling criteria (checklist fill gap with) can provide a cover for police discrimination. Case Overview United States v.Sokolow (1989): permits use of criminal profiles to establish reasonable suspicion to search Whren v. United States (1996): test for probable cause is an objective one; officers motivations (even if racist) are irrelevant Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001): severity of offense is irrelevant for Fourth Amendment seizure Sokolow permits multifactor profiles during aggressive drug interdiction exercises Rehnquists opinion Demand for reasonable suspicion requires law enforcement to articulate factors to satisfy that standard Just because factors contained in a profile that law enforcement then apply to offenders does not make it untrustworthy Used by trained agent to determine criminality Marshalls Dissent Favors fact-sensitive and experience driven decision-making Seems to favor policing as a craft United States v. Sokolow B/c of war on drugs, DEA developed a drug career profile and spread it to to state police departments. The profile gave cops a checklist to go through to see if PC/re suspicion. The checklist: Paying for ticket for a flight in cash Going to place where big on drugs like Miami Gives a fake name No luggage Etc. Hold ( This is good police training. Thus, profiling permits the multifactor tests. Two different models on what good policing looks like Majority This is efficient. Who controls whether there is PC/re suspicion? the profile which the department made THUS, department controls indiv cops. Liberals liked this view the manager cop side Dissent Indiv cops should be the ones who control if PC/re suspicion b/c they should rely on their individual experience. They are well trained, experienced cops Should not have to follow a profile made by some cops that sit behind a desk and dont have experience in the field. J. Marshall here worries that profiles will dull fact-sensitive and experience driven decision making. Conservatives liked this view the street cop side Opportunity to profile is tied to the scope of police discretion Profiling assumes that the targeted group is more likely to commit crime Racial profiling assumes that members of some racial group are more likely to commit crim Racially neutral profiling criteria might be so indeterminate as to permit the police discretion to select anyone they choose Neutral criteria can then provide cover for police discrimination Whren v. United States (1996) (Scalia): Cops were patrolling high drug area and pass truck that was waiting at stop sign for unusually long time. Truck turns quick right w/o signal and speeds off = traffic vio. Cops pull them over b/c have PC to believe traffic violation. Cops see through the window (plain view) that there were large bags of cocaine in the car so NOW have PC for drugs. Rule/Holding: Fourth amendment looks only to objective features of the circumstances establishing probable cause 4th does not look to officers subjective motivation in conducting the stop Subjective motivations include race-based motivations. Cannot bring racial discrimination claim under 4th(use 14th amend. as remedy (civil) (even then difficult to maintain racial disc. Against police under 14th equal protection b/c obj. approach precludes animus element of racial discrim.) Note: police enforcement practices are too localized to furnish a standard for Fourth Amendment reasonableness Was the stop legal? What is the std to decide this? D argues that the stop was unre b/c the real motive for stopping them was NOT a traffic violation. It was REALLY to troll for drugs And really, the D is basically arguing that doing this b/c real motive is based on race. But cops can argue back that not profiling based on race but on the other facts high drug area, late night, weird driving. D then argues for the following standard ( ask if there was PC AND if a re cop (following the dpts rules) would have made the stop for the same given reason? Ct REJECTED Ds (PC +) std Ct here held that the second part of this is to make it SEEM like it is objective BUT its REALLY a proxy for a subjective std just trying to ask what the cops motivation was. Also, said the 4th amm should be uniform Here, D wants to look at what a re cop following his police departments policies would do. Well, polices differ amongst departments so this is not uniform. Instead ct adopted an Objective Approach ( Where 4th amm ONLY looks to objective factors to est PC. Thus, the std is to ask ONLY if there was PC to believe that there was a legitimate reason for s/s like a law being broken. 4th amm is satisfied by an legitimate reason for a s/s. So if there is SOME legitimate reason based on cops observation of facts such as a law being broken then that is sufficient. Cannot ask what was in the mind of the officer or what his subjective motivation was. Can only ask the given facts that the cop observed. Motive is irrelevant. Dont get to ask if malicious or malevolent intent. Note: in Ornelas, relying on some subj aspects of cops mind b/c seeing if cop of same experience/training would have perceived that. BUT STILL not askin what is specifically on that Ds mind. Effect of Obj Approach Under the 14th amm (EP clause), cases of racial discrimination req a claimant to establish disparate impact and animus (motivation to do something) Well, the obj approach precludes est the animus element of racial discrimination. Thus, Whren pushes claims of racial discrimination from the 4th to the 14th amm. This case was a HUGE help to cops b/c allows pretextual policing to TAKE OFF Ex) If pulled over for 20 mph over speed limit = OBVIOUS traffic violation not likely that you are being profiled. BUT if pulled over for 2 mph over speed limit then probally more profiling going on and cops use Whren to do it Some worry about this result b/c overcriminalization means civilians can always be stopped for SOME offense. Takeaway This case entrenches the objective approach in the 4th amm. Also, note that this case is noted as a REALLY bad case on race. Profiling Debate: Kennedy v. Tyler & Wakslak Kennedy Rational reasons for profiling b/c certain groups commit X crime more, but racial profiling acts as a tax burdening the minority groups that are profiled Normally, if police want to burden individuals, they should burden everyone Kennedy justifies profiling in extraordinary circumstances Only if necessary to prevent immediate emergency Tyler & Wakslak Subjective approach focuses on suspects experience of profiling Civilians project their conclusion that the stop was race-based (or not) onto the police How they are treated by the police during the stop determines the civilians conclusion about police motivation Police motivation is irrelevant to the civilians conclusion Traffic Stops v. Investigatory Stops Traffic Stops: speeding well over limit; reckless driving; dui Race neutral and relatively brief Low-level violation; malfunctioning tail-light Disproportionately AA; longer and more intrusive; more likely to seek consent stop Lamberth: 35-44% of AA crossing NJ turnpike are AA, whereas only 15% of them speed Barnes: AA and Hispanics stopped 1.5 times as much as white drivers(race is salient factor in deciding when to search Richard Banks Police will racially profile even if policymakers try to stamp it out So policy-makers should focus on other race-related consequences of the drug war, regardless of whether these consequences flow from profiling But does this amount to a permission for state officials to discriminate? What about stigmatic effect of racial discrimination on people so profiled? Maclin Colorblind approach to totality of the circumstances excludes importance of race as a perceptual clue for law enforcement Van Maanen suggests the perceptual trigger is working out who is likely to be an asshole Assholes receive harsher and more intrusive policing The Court tries to incentivize officers to obey the law by permitting street harassment of civilians The court allowed police safety to trump individual rights Discretion allows for discrimination Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) (Souter, J.) Mom was pulled over b/c her and kids were not wearing seat belts. This same cop pulled mom over a couple days ago and mom went all upper class on him. So when he pulled her over THIS time, he got aggressive with her and arrested her. (He was basically playin gotchya with her waiting for her to make mistake) Rule/Holding: Power to arrest does not depend upon severity of crim, but simply fact that crime was committed. D argues that this arrest violated the 4th amm Hold ( REJECT this claim and hold that arrest did not cause 4th amm violation b/c the arrest was not extraordinary. Ct distinguishes between ordinary and extraordinary: Extraordinary arrest by extreme use of force (like seizure by shooting and killing someone) Ordinary Acceptable behavior like handcuffing them and not keeping them longer that 48 hours etc. Handcuffs are embarrassing but not humiliating enough to be counted as extraordinary. D argued that in Whren the ct wanted the 4th amm to be uniform so there should be a uniform definition of crime D suggests that crime means a jailable offense. Thus, cops should not have the power to arrest unless there is a jailable offense and a minor traffic vio does not meet that level. Hold ( REJECTS this argument too. Majority does not think this is a big deal there is no epidemic of minor intrusions that result in jailing so as to warrant having to think of such a definition. But this is a bad argument since when did consti rights turn on whether there was already an epidemic afoot. Instead, found that the power to arrest does NOT depend on the nature of the crime, but simply on the fact that a crime was committed Something can be a crime whether jailable or no. This give a LOT Of power to leg to define crime in a level so that cops will always have PC to arrest(even if not jailable crime okay if cop arrests you). Ex) the Sagging pant statute Held that the need to keep 4th amm uniform justifies excluding severity of crime when deciding if PC or not. Ds std was PC + jailable crime + dangerousness Dissent (OConnor) agreed with this std said that PC is not a bright line deal and cops judge severity of offenses all the time. Well, majority said that it is too complex we must keep the 4th amm administrable. Takeaway If you can cite or fine someone (but not a jailable offense) then cop STILL has power to arrest you. And as long as it is ordinary then cop is all good. Hibel cops got call from woman in car saying that bf fighting with her. Cops went to check it out. Found car on side of road and guy was outside, woman in the car. Guy refused to give his ID to the cops and asks for the cops to arrest him. There was a statute criminalizing failure to give name to officer during an otherwise legitimate Terry stop Ct held that ( statute satisfied 4th amm reasonableness Hold ( ct held that if it was JUST that statute alone then cops could NOT arrest BUT if there was also re suspicion or PC for cops to intervene THEN it is permissible for cop according to the statute to ask for ID Statute criminalized failure to give name to officer during otherwise legitimate Terry stop Reasonableness of stop provided reasonableness for demand for identification Without reasonable suspicion, law enforcement officers may not request identification. Brown v. Texas (1979) Evaluating Individualized Suspicion Search Incident to Arrest Anyone subject to arrest can be searched for weapons and evidence. But the scope of the search depends, in part, on the place to be searched: (1) person-bright line rule permitting automatic search of person of arrestee; (2) homestandard permitting search of grabbable area within immediate control of arrestee (3) cararea where probable cause to search for evidence of crime of arrest (search permissible even if arestees is not in car when arrested, but only recent occupant). CAR: area where reasonable to expect to find evidence of crime of arrest If person is not secured, the police can search the cabin and all containers therein. If secured the rule changes. Generally, this is an exception to the warrant requirement and PC requirement to search General Overview Chimel v. California (1969): No warrant required for search incident to lawful arrest; object of search includes weapons and evidence; officer can search: Arrestees person Area within immediate control of arrestee United States v. Robinson (1973): so long as legitimate arrest, subsequent search of arrestees person need not depend upon probability that weapons or evidence will be found Maryland v. Buie (1990): may search home to prevent ambush on criminals home turf and may enter premises Authorized protective sweeps incident to arrests Car cases involving distinctive jurisprudence New York v. Belton (1981): custodial arrest permits search of passenger compartment and all containers therein, so long as the search is substantially contemporaneous with arrest Searchable area includes the passenger compartment only, and all containers thereing Search is justified by the necessity of securing the scene Excludes the hood or trunkareas that are searchable under Acevedo Knowles v. Iowa (1998): must be arrest; search-incident doctrine does not apply to citation Thornton v. United States (2004): contemporaneous means suspect was recent occupant of car Applies Belton rule to permit a search of a passenger compartment even after the occupants has left the vehicle Thornton searches must be sufficiently contemporaneous to arrest Permissible so long as suspect is recent occupant of car Arizona v. Gant (2009): (1) Belton search only if suspect is unsecured; (2) if secured, then narrower search only for offense-related evidence the scope of the search determined by the offense of arrest if the suspect is secured Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupants arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. Colorado v. Bertine (1987): Inventory search doctrine: police may search and inventory contents of vehicle they have taken into custody consequent to arrest Vehicle Search incident To arrest: Secured vs. Unsecured Unsecured vehicle occupant Belton test applies: any area within reaching distance of the passenger compartment In Home Case Chimel v. California(1969) (Stewart, J.) Here cops had a arrest warrant to arrest D for the crime of robbing a coin shop. They go to Ds house and his wife lets him in. When D got home, cops handed him the arrest warrant and then searched entire 3 bedroom home asking them to open drawers etc. Cops did NOT have search warrant. Found evid like coins, seized them and used them against D. This is the basic case of the doctrine It is questionable if the warrant is valid but ct just assumes that it is So here there is PC to arrest AND a warrant to arrest. But ct continues to search the ENTIRE house is that okay under SIAD? Cops prolly searching for safety reasons and evid. Ct gave us a bright line rule AND a flexible std Bright line rule part Any person that is lawfully arrested may be searched If this was the only rule then would make the cops search of whole house reasonable because there is a legal arrest under a warrant This would be a HUGE loophole around a search warrant req and would give A LOT of power to cops. Thus, worry that this rule ONLY would leave searches of houses totally unregulated. This is why ct added the flexible std Flexible Std If cops legally arrest the arrestee then they may only search the arrestees person AND grabbable areas (limits the scope of the search) Thus can only search via SIAD the arrestee himself and the grabbable areas near him. But anything outside grabbable area requires a search warrant to search. Ct said that when arresting grabbable area in a home is ONLY as to the room arrestee is in UNLESS have some other re to believe that someone else can jump out of another room to attack. Note in Buie cops when legally arresting can do a brief protective sweep in order to ID and immobilize accomplices that may be hidning. Seems more like a standard than a rule b/c only get to do sweep IF re to believe accomplice is hiding So cant use the legal arrest as justification for this but can use re belief to be worried about it for justification. BUT that doesnt mean can use this quick search to look for coins etc Rationales for searching person or just grabbable areas There are two rationales for search during arrest: Safety worried that arrestee can grab weapon OR that another is hiding and will harm cops Destruction of evid worried that arrestee can grab evid and destroy it. Dissent does not think rationales justify this type of blanketed ability to search. Thus, with searches of houses you need the safety and evidence rationale to do the search of person and grabbable areas. Hold ( this search in every room for evid = unreasonable bc not grabbable areas of the arrestee. SAID is a big deal If make a legal arrest then blanket permission to search w/o warrant or PC the person and areas near him dont have to say that did the right process and dont have to say that you believe evid is on the person or that person is dangerous. Johnson note case after legal arrest, cop found cigarette packet on the arrestee and looked in it and found heroin. The packet was too small for a gun or a knife (something dangerous) But ct held that this was okay b/c no need to prove that believe arrestee was dangerous. Under Robinson, the right to search does not depend on the probability that weapons or evidence will be found. The legitimate arrest by itself justifies any subsequent search of an arrestees person Car Cases So car cases are more dictated by bright line rules and houses are regulated by a standard Belton D pulled over for speeding and he was arrested. Ct adopted a bright line rule that if legal arrest that involves car, then cops get to search the passenger compartment in the car Ct allows this b/c ct declares it a grabbable area since can easily get into this area and worry arrestee can get gun and shoot cop etc Thus, this is a rule based exception (like Robinson) but under a rationale of safety (like Chimmel). Trunk or hood is NOT a grabbable area; thus, cant search these without a search warrant Note: these areas ARE searchable under Acevedo. But under here need search warrant or PC etc BUT, worry that we are dealing with legal fiction here that we assume that all Ds are strong and slitherly so all can get to the passenger compartment easily. Also worry that the exception is swallowing the rule Like cops are not thinking of this in terms of an exception like I usually cant do this but in this limited case I can. Instead cops are thinking, I want to get into passenger compartment, and how do I do that? oh let me just arrest him. Thonton Cops thought D was a drug dealer. He was outside the car and walking away from car when cops arrested him and the cops were slow to get to the car to search it. Well, if D is away from car like here and search happened a bit after arrest, can cop still search compartment of car under Belton? Ct held ( NO! Ct held that searches must be sufficiently contemporaneous to arrest so that the suspect is a recent occupant of car Recent occupant = person must be sufficiently close to car and arrest must be sufficiently contemporaneous to occupant exiting the car. Thus, this adds a bit onto the clear-cut Belton rule (see below) Arizona v. Gant(2009) (Stevens, J.) Cops pull over D for a traffic violation of suspended license and when secured him they also found drugs. Here, the ct without overruling Belton or Thornton gets rid of the idea that Beltonbi creates a bright line rule an treat it instead as a true exception Ct here agreed that the fiction in Belton was too fiction Held that Belton does NOT authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupants arrest after arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the car. Here, the scope of the search is determined by the offense of arrest Thornton Arrested for drug crime If ther was PC to arrest D for drugs then can do a protective sweep of car under Belton Might need bit more PC to believe drugs in car (Acevedo) but dont need THAT much more. And unsure if had that PC in that case. Gant arrested for traffic offense (though also later found drugs) Ct held that if D secured then there is no safety justification, only justification could be for evidence (destruction of evid rationale) evid for the reason for the arrest. But what evid would cops be looking for here? B/c has to be evid from the re to arrest then cops would have to be looking for evid of the suspended license Well they already saw the license and not going to find more evid of this crime in car Thus, if traffic offense is reason for arrest (like broken taillight etc) then that does NOT justify looking into passenger compartment under destruction of evid rationale b/c the evid for the reason for arrest is OUTSIDE of the car. THUS ( can only do search incident to arrest with a recent occupant of car only if arrestee is (1) within reaching distance of the passenger compartment OR (2) reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evid of the offense of arrst. More restrictive than Belton And the justification for non-danger based search incident to arrest tracks Acevedo more closely. RULE: Search incident to the arrest (arrested for PC) is automatic and the Probable Cause only extends to the arresting offense. Tech Cases In Riley the worry is that searching a mobile phone reveals too much information Two Args Search for evidence is primarily search for physical evidence Permission to search for evidence is justified under destruction of evidence rational Riley v. California(2014) (Roberts, C.J.) There are two Ds looked at here. One is a gang member and the other is an alleged drug dealer. Ct here is asking if Robinsons bright line rule applies to cell phones. So under Robinson can search persons clothing and small containers on them like cigarette package (Johnson) Well does that extend to cell phones that people have on their persons? Ct held ( if you arrest someone then you CANNOT go through their phone. Refused to extend Robinson here. Held that this is a categorically diff situation ( b/c privacy issues are quantitatively and qualitatively diff Quan cell can hold SO MUCH MORE than a bag on your person Worry that searching a cell = reveals TOO much info. When just grab persons bag, the only info would get is tangible/physical evid and only enough that can fit in bag. Qal Has super personal stuff like photos, credit cards, etc. Ct stated that search for evid is primarily a search for physical evid so Robinson is for physical evid and not virtual/intangible evid Ct ran through the Chimmel rationales to see if gave reason to allow search of cells Safety? NO, cops cannot justify a search under dangerousness rationale b/c data will not physically hurt cops Now, can do a brief search of outside of phone to make sure like razor not hidden there but that is it cant open cell up and look at data Destruction of evid? Gvt argues that can do remote wiping and encryption Ct rejected this b/c doesnt happen a lot. And if really worried of this then can do stuff to prevent while get warrant like turn it off etc. REJECT - THUS ( bright line rule that CANNOT search cells incident to arrest (not even flip phones). Technology When get into tech areas cts get nervous about scope of 4th amm and seem much more willing to place burdens on cops. Well, are cells REALLY that categorically diff than other stuff? This would be mass info collection and ct thinks that getting this much info THIS easily = even MORE than mass policing so worry about htat. Overview: General Mix of Rules and Standards Who can be searched? Bright line rule( Under SIAD, ANYONE can be searched if lawfully arrested What areas can be searched? Home Std ( Can only search person (arrestee) and grabbable areas (Chimmel) Std ( Also can do a brief protective sweep if have re to believe there are others in home (Buie) or adjacent area in home where accomplice might hide Street Rule ( If legally arrest suspect then can search his person for physical evid or weapons. (Robinson). BUT not applicable to data on mobile phones (Riley). Cars Mix ( If legal arrest, cops can search passenger compartment as a grabbable area (Belton rule) as long as the suspect is a recent occupant (Thorton standard) AND arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment (Gant standard). If vehicles recent occupant is unsecured, Belton-style sweep of passenger compartment is allowed(Grant, Thornton) Std ( But if recent occupant is secured then such a search of car is determined by safety or PC to search (what is the offense to which arrested for Have PC to believe going to find that evid in car?) Checkpoints, Special Needs, Regulator and Administrative Searches Special Needs Doctrine Basics Involves a kind of search and the classic case is a uniform stop such as checkpoints All cases in this section involve some non-trivial privacy invasion. Roadblocks (checkpoints) = full blown seizures by cops of of drivers and passengers Checkpoints usually pull over random groups of cars or pull over everyone. Special needs when there are special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement then the search is beyond the ordinary criminal investigation and thus, that renders the warrant and PC req impracticable These type of searches are quasi administrative b/c not ordinary crime investigation. They are peculiar types of exigencies Ex) Sobriety check points Not really ordinary crime investigations, mainly for overall road safety. Difference with these cases and Terry Terry introduces the re suspicion doctrine but that still preserves the notion of Individual Suspicion There was individual suspicion to support a 4th amm intrusion. Thus, re suspicion (like PC) is individualized for particular crimes However, with special need cases, there usually is NO individualized suspicion, there is only generalized suspicion. So when cops stop you at a checkpoint, they dont do so b/c think specifically that YOU did some certain thing wrong. In these cases, there need not be indiv suspicion, but only a generalized req that the stop be reasonable ( special needs REPLACES the warrant and PC req with a generalized re std. Part of what makes a stop re? ( the fact that the stops are uniform meaning EVERYONE gets stopped b/c the stops are nondiscretionary This is opposite of Terry b/c that kind of stop allows LOTS of discretion. See second party more under the cases leading up to Edmund ( THUS ( when there is a special need for mass searching then the impracticability of having indiv suspicion justifies the cops engaging in suspicionless searches. Overview of suspicionless checkpoint stops United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976): Court upheld suspicion-less checkpoint searches at the border How legally special is Governments interest in detecting and preventing illegal immigration? This was a post-Terry case that was about checkpoints at the border. Did this involve a special need? State claimed that immigration enforcement (making sure that only good people cross and that the border is secured) is beyond ordinary criminal investigation and thus a special need Test: Balancing States interest with Publics Interests State: Difficulty of containing illegal immigrantion at the border and impracticality of studying each car Public: Objective intrusion: stop, question, visual inspection (limited because no search of occupants or car) and Subjective intrustion: fear and surprise engendered in motorist Ct looked at whether the stop was reasonable So as stated above something that could make search re is nondiscretionary nature of it Here, dont want to profile people crossing so the cops stop EVERYONE that wants to cross ( thus, RE! ALSO, another part of seeing whether re ( Balancing the gvt interest (the purpose/special need) with an indivs privacy interst Here, ct did this balancing and held that border control is a hard law enforcement problem AND the intrusion is minimal so tipped the scale in favor of gvt interest. Hold ( ct upheld the suspicionless checkpoint searches at the border i Thus, if you are crossing border in car then cops can search you without a warrant and without any form of individual suspicion as long as do so re (above). This case justifies searches at airports ( Airports = international borders. So when we go to airports we are allowed to be searched even if there is no suspicion based on the special needs doctrine. Brown v. Texas (1979): checkpoints permissible if planned, and embody explicit and neutral limitations on police conduct Delaware v. Prouse (1979): police cannot engage in roving, suspicionless searches of vehicles But: in dicta, roadblocks designed to verify drivers license and vehicle registrations are o.k. Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz (1990): suspicion-less stops for traffic offenses permitted Court employs a balancing test: Magnitude of drunken driving problem vs. privacy interest There is a very low success rate for roadblock stops Not necessarily Magnitude of harm (deaths from durnk dirvers) would justify more stops to detect or prevent harm More stops means more deterrent effect Drivers are more certain to be stopped; so more likley to not drink Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000): checkpoints with the primary purpose of detecting wrongdoing are impermissible Illinois v. Lidster (2004): information-seeking stops, in which police distribute flyers to publicize criminal activity, do not criminalize vehicles occupants by seeking evidence of their wrongdoing Roadblocks involve (1) full-blown seizure by the police of a group of dirvers and passengers (2) without any individualized suspicion Indianapolis v. Edmond(2000) (OConnor, J.) Here the checkpoint is to interdict drugs. At each checkpoint, cop would pull over certain number of cars and ask drivers to give license/registration. As did that, cops looked for signs of drunkenness AND drug dog walks around car. Primary Purpose Test Ask what the primary purpose of the stop is (the NATURE of the stop is) it will either amount to special needs or ordinary criminal investigation. If primary purpose is ordinary criminal investigation then NOT a special needs search and need re suspicion or PC to do it If primary purpose is special needs then search is okay as long as it is re ( non-discretionary and NOT ordinary criminal wrongdoings (balance). Primary purpose is NOT the purpose of the individual, but the purpose of the INSTITUTION This is a different notion of objectivity not what the indiv cops motivations are but what the institutions motivations, the dpts policies This gets around pretextual policing Ex) If stop you for broken taillight but really cops just rying to get you for drug interdiction Well, we ask which is the primary purpose. How to decide this is below ( How do we know what the institutions primary and secondary purposes are? One way is to look at cir surrounding it like how the regulation is written, what did signs say, what were the directives for the procedure (like pull over everyone, etc). Ct Applied Primary Purpose Test Looked at the regulation which points to drugs. Also, the sign at the stop read Narcotics checkpoint. The primary purpose of this checkpoint stops was aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing ( checkpoints are primarily regulatory and non-adversarial, but those directed at drivers wrongdoing are primarily investigatory and adversarial Hold ( the institutions primary purpose for this stop was drugs Well is this primary purpose a special need? NO! Not as if social workers stopping cars to search for drugs b/c of health reasons, COPS are doing this to catch criminals carrying drugs Usually, cops and not admin people are the ones involved with ordinary criminal investigations. Thus, this is to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing ( this is NOT a special needs deal To do such a search then you need individualized suspicion that amounts to re suspicion or PC. Finding the primary purpose helps in the question of whether the stop was generally re. First, is the stop non-discretionary? Second, what is the purpose? And once find the primary purpose (the gvt interests) then you balance that against the indivs interest of privacy. If the primary purpose amounts to something like drug interdiction which is a ordinary criminal investigation then that will NEVER outweigh privacy intersts. If the primary purpose are things like ( Caretaking, employee safety, integrity of national border, or regulation of traffic/safety THEN those are considered special needs and those will usually outweigh privacy. How is this diff from Sitz where asked for license and registration too? Well in Sitz they arrested people for intoxication and unlike drugs (what arresting people for here) intoxication = immediate traffic safety issue. Reason why state cant claim this as a license/registration stop is b/c primary purpose said this was a drug stop. License/registration = secondary purpose Checkpoints asking for help in solving crimes are different from those set up to search occupants Illinois v. LidsterCops set up highway checkpoint to ask drivers for info about a hit and run. During tops, cops found the D was driving drunk and arrested him Highway checkpoint used to ask motorists for information about recent hit-and-run is reasonable Individualized suspicion has little role to play in information-seeking stops Special Needs Special needs replace the warrant and probable cause requirements, with a generalized reasonableness standard Special Needs in schools T.L.O. v. New Jersey (1985): search of students purse permitted given reasonable grounds for suspecting student violated rule Special needs of a school is to ensure the safety of kidsles protection of privacy is given in these areas General reasonable suspicion for teacher or school to conduct search Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995): reasonable to require drug testing of school athletes, given custodial and tutelary obligations of school district, along with minimal intrusion of urinalysis testing Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002): suspicionless drug-testing of students who wished to participate in competitive extracurricular activities permissible given swift and informal disciplinary process Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding (2009): scope or manner of search unreasonable when principle searched students underwear for small amount of drugs Special Needs Elsewhere Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987): probation officers may search probationers homes on reasonable grounds Probabtion officer searched Ds home after hearing news of D having ammunition and found weapons Samson v. California (2006): police search of parolee permissible absent reasonable suspicion where parolee waived right to object to search and state law prohibited arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches More a balancing-of-interests approach than simply relying on the special needs of the state to search probationers OConnor v. Ortega (1987): public institutions search of employees office permitted without warrant or suspicion Public employer then under special needs doctrine can search desk, cabinets for workers as long as search is geneally re. susp Facts: Dr. was alleged to have been harassing trainees so searched office. Collecting DNA Maryland v. King(2013) (Kennedy, J.) There was a rape but had no leads, but did get DNA from victim. There was a guy arrested later for burglary. When arrested, cops took his DNA by swab as part of routine booking procedure. Eventually, cops saw that his DNA matched that of the rapist. D argues that the swab test they did was a search that vio his privacy. Ct held that YES the swab test is a search BUT that this type of search is reasonable. Did cops need indiv suspicion of D being a rapist to do such a search? Ct held NO! BUT cts reasoning was NOT b/c this was a special needs situation, but b/c this is a lowered expectation of privay situation ( Instead ct said it was b/c an arrestee that is booked into jail has a lessened privacy interest THUS ct uses that to justify a suspicionless search of his DNA. Ct held that this is a special needs Further, ct held that this DNA swab is just part of the normal admin search that is re b/c: Cops need to see how dangerous these arrestees are by seeing past crimes this helps cops know: if should grant them bail b/c if super bad past crimes then they are higher threat to the public so should not grant them bail AND how to treat them in jail b/c could be higher threat to cops in jail and/or other inmates, Gvt has interests in making sure the ID is correct (have the right guy) outweighs the lower privacy interest that have when you are arrested. Thus, like admin searches above like in schools the re of the search is not b/c there is this super special need that outweighs the privacy interest but moreso that the privacy interest is lessened so that even a slight bit of gvt interest will outweigh the lessened privacy interest. Dissent Majority relies upon the states interest in identifying the arrestee when processing him for detention BUT dissent argues that even if that is true, THAT is not what using DNA matching for b/c didnt start the matching immed upon booking to get the ID AND didnt get results until 30 or more days later. The tech to ID the arrestee via DNA is not yet able to quickly do this. Thus, Dissent says that cops NOT using DNA to match it to an indiv BUT they are instead using the DNA to match it to a piece of evid of an unsolved crime! They are matching DNA in order to match unidentified DNA (like here the rapist DNA was unidentified. The D was identified.) Thus, the DNA is used to ID a prior crime and NOT the current criminal SO this is an ordinary criminal investigation and NOT an administrative activity that is just part of booking an arrestee. Dissent worries that DNA is A LOT of info that we would not have otherwise been able to access, makes it way to easy for cops to get THAT much info (just like the cell phones in Riley). Note One argument that maj could put forward is that this was more like Lidster where its like asking for help on already committed crime. But did not argue that. Special Needs: Regulatory and Administrative Searches Regulatory inspections: may be conducted on quantum of suspicion standard (less than probable cause) by balancing the (1) need to search vs (2) invasion which search entails Factors required to permit warrantless search under special needs doctrine: Business is closely regulated Substantial governmental interest supports regulatory scheme Warrantless searches are necessary to further regulatory scheme Inspection scheme is constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant Inspection is limited in time, place & scope Camara and Burger Camara v. Municipal Court(1967) (White, J.) building inspectors going around buildings to see if there are any probs so as to protect the public safety and health. However, to investigate, the inspectors must get in the building, well what if the owners dont want those inspectors in there or want inspectors to give justification for going in? Earlier case is the Franks case states that the 4th amm does not cover these regulatory searches. Thus, inspectors may go into buildings without a warrant and without any justification for entering, and 4th amm does not protect the owners who dont want them in there Note: individualized suspicion per building is hard (and thus giving justification as to why want to inspect building to owner is hard) b/c these inspections are mass policing type form where see group of buildings that need to be inspected for some reason but wont know if issue until get IN. Thus, there is a statute in this jur if owner refuses to allow inspector entry then that is considered a crime and owner will be arrested. THEN, Mapps goes down and states that there is a remedy for 4th amm violations. B/c of this, the ct here decides to reconsider whether the 4th amm applies to these regulatory searches. Hold ( Ct applies the 4th amm to regulatory searches by gvt officials of property States that it is better for inspector to have warrant saying the reason for inspection HOWEVER the warrant need NOT be issued upon PC, some notion of reasonableness is enough Re ( This is regulatory and not punitive. Thus, regulatory inspection may be conducted on reasonable suspicion which is a lower burden than PC The Re Std balances the states need to search v. the intrusion on the person Here the balance would be ( public interest (prevent dangerous buildings etc) v. the intrusion on the person Held that this was a minimal invasion so balanced in favor of it being re to do inspection on owner. Case introduces this balancing test (which Terry doubles down on) The Warrant So apply the re std b/c it is a non-investigatory search so like community caretaking where std is re. BUT it is also an administrative style search so a bit diff, so will req a warrant Thus, cops must go to neutral magistrate so mag may decide if re grounds to inspect. If mag says yes re then issues warrant. However, the warrant can be general like saying need to search set of buildings b/c old (not indiv b/c accept that it is hard to do that in this situation) So when inspector comes to home, owner may ask to see the warrant and if show you one then that tells Owner that the inspection was deemed re. Must let them in. Takeaway Re std = LESS than PC Non-investigatory searches justify the use of the lesser std re. Case introduces balancing test of re std (PC is NOT a balancing test just ask if there is fair probability that criminal activity is afoot. Reasonableness and Police Use of Force Case Tennesee v. Garner (1985): use of deadly force to seize a fleeing felon is reasonable only if: the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon; or there is probable cause to believe that the felons crime involved inflicting great bodily harm Graham v. Connor (1989): Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard is objective and applies to all claims of excessive force Scott v. Harris (2007): applies Grahams objective reasonableness standard to deadly force used to seize fleeing felon Plumhoff v. Rickhard (2014): reasonable to fire shots into fleeing car until flight ended; temporary cessation and then resumption of flight does not make use of force unreasonable Basics 3rd party surveillance (like via cell phones, dash cams etc) has transformed the cops use of force. Note that shootings (even if suspect is unarmed) usually happens in physical arrests where cops are trying to arrest and suspect is resisting/fighting back. Historically ( use of deadly force was automatically justified to seize fleeing felons. BUT NOW ( cops are req to follow a reasonableness std See below under Garner to see the std. Remember, dont need to kill someone for the force to be considered deadly force. Just force that is sufficient to kill someone. Cases of Deadly Force Tennessee v. Garner(1985) (White, J.) cops saw Garner running through backyards (dont know what for), cops yelled at him to stop, he did not, he tried to jump the fence and cop shot him in the back of the head. Why did cop shoot? to arrest/seize the guy and NOT to protect himself or others from physical harm Cop did NOT shoot out of fear that going to be harmed b/c guys back was to him and there was no evid that guy was a threat to others State argues Such use of force here was re and does so by arguing that there is a distinction between the justification for the arrest and the manner of the arrest State argues that the 4th amm ONLY covers the justification for the arrest and not the manner. Thus, so long that there is PC to seize the suspect (justification) then ANY KIND of seizure is re. Also state argued the historical view has always been that deadly force was ALWAYS re in order to seize fleeing felon. If state is deemed right, and that is the rule then what are the consequences? Cop that is incapable of catching suspect or too lazy to even chase him can use any type of force (even deadly) so long as there is PC to believe suspect committed a crime. Thus, may encourage cops not to even chase, and just to shoot. Also force would not be defined so could be anything from handcuffs to m16 = Big concern. Ct REJECTS states separation and the historical presumption Ct rejects the separation of justification and manner and holds that the 4th amm applies to BOTH! Holds that the std must meet for BOTH justification AND manner of arrest is PC std. Remember that normally cts default to reasonableness std but ct did not do that here. Ct also rejects the historical presumption Held that back then felonies used to be REALLY dangerous crimes, which are not comparable with crimes deemed felonies now. J. White here in the maj goes against originalist view. Also back then, handguns were not as precise and hard to accurately hit stuff. But now WAY more accurate = more deadly. THE STD (deadly force [the manner] is justified upon PC to believe that suspect presents a threat of serious harm to himself and/or others OR that suspect has committed a crime involving violence. This is an objective std that looks to the totality of the cir Interesting b/c yeah since the Bryan case in 1996, the 4th amm is an obj std based on totality of cir BUT here the Garner case was in 1985 which was before the whole obj deal. Mere commission of a felony OR some re suspicion of the above factors is NOT sufficient to use deadly force. Must be full blown PC! Thus both the decision to seize (justification) and the manner of a seizure must be justified by PC. Balancing To decide if the intrusion (deadly force) is necessary or not the ct balances the extent of intrusion on liberty (death) v. the need for deadly force (threat of harm or violent crime) HERE, the extent of intrusion was unmatched since there was no threat of harm or violent crime involved. Thus, deadly force was NOT justified here! Note Decision to do a Terry Stop only requires re suspicion, and not PC. But that is b/c cop could NEVER use deadly force to effectuate a Terry stop. Diff situation. Scott v. Harris (2007) cop went after driver for speeding but car tried to outrun cop. After some time of a high-speed chase, cop got permission to do technique to stop car and so he rear-ended car which caused car to crash and injure driver so now quadriplegic. Note: that once the cop bumps the back of the car to get it off the road THAT is a full blown seizure. D argued the following analysis the ct should follow: FIRST, we must ask if suspect posed an immed threat of harm SECOND, we must ask if deadly force was necessary THIRD, we must ask if the cop gave any warning. Ct REJECTED Ds checklist approach in justifying deadly force Ct held that Garner did NOT est such preconditions, just gave us a way to apply a test to see if a certain type of force was re or not and reasonableness is NOT reduced to a checklist! Remember every time someone argues to implement a checklist to decide if 4th amm vio sup ct rejects it. Ct held that we should apply the std in Garner but have to do so by looking at the particular facts of this case (totality of the cir part) ( Apply std from Garner PC to justify decision to seize? YES there is PC here b/c driver violated traffic laws Also, remember innocent people do not run away. Here, cop tries to pull driver over and he speeds off. Manner of seizure re? Danger to self or others? must look at this cases facts What factors could influence this? If it is a congested area on road = more danger. If rural/empty road = less danger Time of day. How fast going. How long chase lasts and how much gas car can hold. Longer going can argue more dangerous but could also argue maybe less b/c bound to run out of gas soon. Amount of pedestrians around. Passengers in car? Factors present here that could argue that it is dangerous to others/self? Going into oncoming traffic Quickly changing lanes Speeding at high speeds Ct then EXPANDS the Garner std just a bit Ct held that reasonability of the manner CAN be reduced to factors (see some of them above) and one factor can look at is the culpability of the victim If the ct finds that the victim created a dangerous condition that significantly contributed to his injury then that culpability makes the manner in which the cops seized MORE re. Thus, ct here INSTEAD looks more to reasonableness as the std for balancing the use of force and the harm to the suspect ALSO ct noted that there are diff levels of deadly force. Sticking a bomb on you is more likely to result in death than shooting you with handgun. And remember in Garner we balance the intrusion (the type of deadly force) against the need to see if justified or not. How deadly is bumping a speeding car given this intrusion? Hold ( ct held that the suspects culpability in causing dangerous situation that could harm bystanders made the cops use of force (manner to seize) re in order to protect those bystanders. Difference between Garner and Scott So there is a n evolution of what we deem is re. Used to be re = PC + Warrant But cases before Gates (1983) started making PC std look more flid Then move to re = broader so that it = PC + warrant + re suspicion. THEN move to we have diff zones of re where SOMETIMES it is expressed through PC, sometimes through indiv suspicion, and sometimes through generalized suspicion (special needs) AND there are diff tests to assess all those THUSthis is getting messy Garner is at the cusp of the move towards re as the touchstone of 4th amm in 1985. So if think that Scott ct seems more tolerant of cops deciding to use deadly force than Garner ct then might be b/c Garner was two years after Gates. The hard and fast understanding of PC gives way by 2007 (the year of THIS case) to the totality of the cir re analysis where we ask what a re cop in a rapidly changing situation that is dangerous would do. Ct here LOVED using the word training There can be gd training and bad training but ct doesnt discuss this ct instead assume that if the police dpt adopted this police then likely is a good policy. Even if turns out that the training is not good, still would argue that a re cop would follow their training making their actions in the cir re. Note ( Say bumping the car made it hit another car which flips and injures the other driver if this happens then the victim in the other car can still sue cop for the use of deadly force that resulted in her injury. Case of Non-deadly Force Graham v. Connor(1989) (Rhenquist, C.J.) guy had insulin reaction so had friend drive him to store to get some orange juice to counter it. Guy ran in, got the juice and got back to car quick. Cop saw him enter and leave quickly so after they drove off, cop pulled him over. Had a debacle trying to arrest him that resulted in guy breaking his foot. Cop handcuffed him but later cop realized there was no crime and let him go. Guy filed charges against the state This case is in-between Garner and Scott BUT it instead is about reasonableness of non-deadly force The guy filed a Sec. 1983 charge against the cop remedial statute allowing a civil action against those that violate rights while acting under the state. The main issue here Lower Cts This case involved a motion for SJ so asking if sufficient evid to go to trial. The appellate ct ended up kicking back the case to trial cts to apply the GF efforts std, which is from the cases that analyzed this under the DP clause. Thus, trial ct will ask questions about whether cops acted in GF or maliciously/BF This is a subjective test. Sup Ct here REJECTS the GF Efforts Std Held that excessive force cases involve the 4th amm and NOT DP clause and with the 4th amm we always apply an objective, reasonableness std The ct never officially decides if the cops conduct constituted a 4th amm vio But lets analyze it anyway with small amount they said PC to justify the decision to seize? Arguably so b/c saw the guy enter and leave quickly. BUT note that this is mistaken PC b/c there actually was no crime. There is at least def re suspicion to do a Terry Stop. Thus, justification is likely good. Manner of the seizure permissible? The force was NOT deadly, BUT even if the force is not deadly we still use the same analysis under the totality of the cir (Garner modified by Scott). Thus, we ask: was the force permissible from a re cops point of view? This test is STILL obj and NOT subj b/c dont go into the cops subj thoughts/beliefs. Here, PC to seize was mistaken so the amount of forced used in which a re cop may think is necessary to restrain suspect was ALSO mistaken BUT so long as it is objectively re then the use of force is permissible. Thus, this conduct (stopping, handcuffing, wrestling with him a bit) could be permissible based on a re cops perception at the time even if it is mistaken and results in harm to the suspect. BUT there are some facts that suggest that the use of force is unre like the fact that the cops refused to get medical help. And denial of medical care could make a jury find that THAT is an unre use of force. Remember here it was SJ issue thus it is all about if the JURY thinks it is re or not. Ct does not answer this kicks it down to lower cts to decide. However, ct argue that denial of medical care was not SO unre b/c of the rapidly changing cir etc So it is arguable jury decides. The Concern After This Case Worry that the 4th amm provides a limited excuse for cops that mistake the amt of force necessary to seize the suspect But others disagree and hold that such excuse IS limited b/c it excuses mistaken but STILL re police conduct Also, whole point is to allow well-trained gvt officials acting in rapidly changing env to use their discretion to respond to hard to judge cir. Scope of Exclusionary RuleGood Faith Exception The exclusionary rule will not apply when a police officer makes a good faith mistake regarding the validity of her conduct. Good faith can be determined through the justifiable and reasonable reliance on a judicial or executive official. Under Leon, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable if it is objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on the warrant. Whereas in Herring, the exclusionary rule only applies to deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct. In Herring and Davis measure deterrence by balancing police culpability against granting windfalls to guilty defendants (rather than burdening innocent ones). Overview on Exclusionary Rule: Two perspectives on the exclusionary rule: Constitutional right: If the state violates the Fourth Amendment, then the evidence collected is excluded as of right Judicially-created remedy: Exclusion, as a remedy depends on some judicially announced rationale In Leon, the Court adopts the judicial remedy position and declares the rules rationale to be deterring police misconduct The Courts rationale rest upon its regulatory understanding of police organization The Court rejects a model of policing in which cops answer to prosecutors and courts The Court embraces the idea that cops, prosecutors, and courts have different chains of command On the deterrence view, some reasonable mistakes may be constitutionally insignificant CaselawReliance on a judicial official United States v. Leon (1984): the exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right but a judicial remedy to deter police misconduct; deterrence cannot dissuade police officers who reasonably rely on a facially valid search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate The goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter police officer misconduct The threat of exclusion cannot be expected significantly to deter [magistrates] Only trial attorneys are deterred by exclusion Court officials are deterred by reversal, not exclusion The objectively reasonable test establishes a strong benefit-of-the-doubt rule for facially valid warrants But Leon seems to reverse the structure of accountability Only if the magistrates judgement was completely wrong can the evidence be suppressed. Isnt it the magistrates job to review the officers affidavit, not the officers job to review the magistrates decision? Courts answer is that evidence comes in so long as the warrant application was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable Illinois v. Krull (1987): good faith exception to the exclusionary extended to reasonable reliance upon a then-valid statute that is ultimately found to violate the Fourth Amendment Arizona v. Evans (1995): when bookkeeping error by court clerk resulted in failure to advise the arresting officer that an arrest warrant had been quashed, deterrence rationale would not control her conduct or that of the police CaselawReliance on Executive Official Herring v. United States (2009): the exclusionary rule does not apply when bookkeeping error by police employee resulted in mistakenly advising the arresting officer that there was an outstanding warrant, the Court found that the deterrence rationale would only dissuade deliberate misconduct by the police rather than negligent misconduct; the Court employed a balancing test to assess the costs to the criminal justice systemessentially the officer must be the equivalent of criminally culpable in violating the Fourth Amendment. Davis v. North Carolina (2011): the exclusionary rule does not apply where police officers follow subsequently modified caselaw (New York v. Belton, modified by Arizona v. Gant) because the police conduct was not deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent Ensures that rationale of Herring is extended to almost every case and treats exclusion as windfall to a guilty criminal defendant Exclusion is a major burden: (1) Exclusion requires courts to ignore reliable, trustworthy evidence bearing on guilt or innocence. (2) Exclusions effect is to set the criminal loose in the community without punishment. Basics The following cases show the mvt of reconfiguring the relationship between the branches of gvt and the cops. In the Warren ct era (J. that wrote Mapp opinion) ( used to look at the criminal justice sys as a whole, integrated sys with the ct at the top and everyone else underneath it So in this model, cops answered to prosecutors and cts b/c it is a hierarchical rel. Cts set rules for subordinates (like prosecutors and defense attorneys) to follow who then tell THEIR subordinates (cops) what to do. The exclusionary rule is primarily a rule of deterrence b/c it is a stick that cts use to beat others into compliance Excluding evid is a powerful sanction. If cop does something wrong at the arrest stage (like vio 4th amm via s/s OR vio 5th amm during interrogation) OR if prosecutor does something wrong at the charging stage then one way to punish such wrongdoings is by corrective justice ( exclude the evid that was wrongly gathered or presented. Pic of the Old Model  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/4F6B0C99-B654-E848-8E1D-31B1D77526C5.png" \* MERGEFORMAT   INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/434E228A-C81C-AD48-A9C0-98E8A2DF2D47.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  BUT J. White in Leon thought the model was diff and cases therafter embraced it. This model is where cops, prosecutors, and cts are all separate institutions, separate chains of demand NOT hierarchical. Thus, it is not ONE system but diff, separate sys so that subordinates in one sys are not subject to superiors in another sys. J. White uses this to show that something that ct decides like excluding evid doesnt REALLY deter the cops b/c in a diff sys Not clear that cop cares what happens at trial. Might just think well I gathered my evid and gave to prosecutor so my job is DONE. Thus, under this model, it is unlikely that something done by the ct or the prosecutor would influence the street cop. These differences are shown in the pic of the new model below See that the thick arrow lines turned to dotted lines to suggest that the bottom street cop is bossed by the Sargent and NOT the prosecutor Also, diff colors to show that all diff institutions Pic of New Model  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/59C7208A-618B-004B-BBB6-0252175A6027.png" \* MERGEFORMAT   INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/A4BF4EE3-0EE1-9243-B46C-1C0C28BC241F.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Cases United States v. Leon(1984) (White, J) There was a anonymous tip to cops saying saw large amounts of drugs in residence 5 mo earlier. Cops went to observe the house in order to corroborate the tip and saw people leaving with small paper bags and found that those people had past run in with drug charges. Cops used this stuff in affidavits to get a search warrant. Magistrate granted the search warrant, cops go in and find drugs which used against Ds. Ds here seek to suppress the evid b/c the warrant was invalid. So the warrant was facially valid BUT turned out to not actually be valid. Why? The evid used to get the warrant did not supply enough PC. 5 months ago = stale. Just b/c past criminals leaving house doesnt mean anything could be reformed. Not enough info to prove PC to believe criminal activity going on. Fourth Amm vio here? Ct says that they assume for the sake of argument that there was a 4th amm vio b/c the warrant was invalid thus, unconsti. B/c dont really care if there was an actual vio since the main issue here is regarding an exception. Hold ( So SURE there is a 4th amm vio which usually leads to excluding the evid, BUT the ct found an exception to the exclusionary rule ( GF Exception ( So long as the cop reasonably and in GF relies on a warrant then there is no need to exclude the evid, evid is admissible. Ct holds that some reasonable mistakes may be constitutionally insignificant so that the remedy of exclusion is not warranted This est a strong benefit-of-the-doubt given to cops that act in GF on facially valid warrants. So here the ct starts the toleration of mistakes by agents in the beurocracy which continues to expand in later cases. Reasoning for Exception (Policy) ( Understanding the exclusionary remedy and its relation to the cops, prosecutors, and magistrates. Exclusionary rule is used to deter but here the cops did exactly what you want cops to do go get warrant and then act on it once received it. It was the MAGISTRATE that made the mistake here, not the cop. Thus, use of the exclusionary rule would technically be used to deter the magistrate here, not the cop. BUT it would not in fact actually deter the magistrate since magistrates are just neutral indiv that have no stake in outcomes of criminal trials. Instead, the exclusionary sanction will STILL harm the prosecutor and the cops moreso than the magistrate (who was the one who MADE THE MISTAKE!) since they care more about the outcome of criminal trials. Thus, the exclusionary sanction is the WRONG sanction to use if want to punish the magistrate (the person who made the mistake). Instead, if really want to punish magistrate then the sanction should be overruling the magistrate by saying that he got the 4th amm wrong THEN that could punish magistrate by embarrassing him enough to be more careful next time have to decide if grat warrant or not. HOWEVER, one argument is that maybe could deter magistrates b/c not as neutral as they appear. Here, ct talks about the justification aspect of the exclusionary rule Remember, in Mapp the ct comes to understanding that there are many justifications to apply the exclusionary rule one being that we dont want cops to get involved in lawlessness through policing. However, this understanding loses in Leon and is later BATTERED in Herring. Dissent Harm to society is NOT just that criminal goes free but really that the system is overall broken. Note Leon case came down after Gates (which made sub changes to the PC rule turned it into a squishy balancing test). Thus, cts through 80s and 90s are chipping away at the 4th amm (the substantive part whether there is a 4th am violation at all) by creating SO many exceptions. But now even hitting on the remedy part and creating exceptions for that! So rare if even get a 4th amm vio b/c of all the exceptions, but even if do, then there are MORE exceptions so that remedy doesnt apply either. Leon lies dormant BUT comes BACK into prominence when Herring and Davis cases were coming down. Herring v. United States(2009) (Roberts, C.J.) Cops think D is up to no good so they call around to see if there are any warrants for his arrest, diff country over says yup, we have a bench warrant for his arrest. After hearing that, cops ask for a fax of this warrant, and go arrest him. Cops then did search incident to arrest and found meth. After all that, found out that there was a mistake in the sys and the warrant was actually recalled. We are unsure here WHO made the mistake If the mistake is just the sys that cops use then maybe fair to exclude evid to deter such mistakes made by cops. But if clerk of the courthouse made mistake (like forgot to update) then not super faiar to exclude evid b/c would punish cops that did nothing wrong. Before this case, Leon looked like an outlier case (b/c hadnt been followed in 20 years), but HERE the ct uses it as a starting point for the analysis Hold ( Just b/c there is a 4th amm vio, that doesnt mean that the exclusionary rule automatically applies. Instead the mistake must be to the point where it seems culpable in order to warrant the exclusion. And culpability means the criminal kind. Thus, if the mistake was done: deliberately, recklessly, or grossly negligent = culpable or systematic negligence (reoccurring) THEN that is sufficiently sig enough for the exclusionary rule to likely apply. BUT if mistake was done via ordinary neg then no harm, no foul. Unlikely to be sufficiently culpable to justify exclusion. Thus if unique incident where neg involved (not reoccurring) then not sig enough. Also, the ct did the balancing test of costs v. benefits The ct states that the exclusion rule operates poorly to deter minor police misconduct. BUT even if call it a minor police conduct, it is up to the balancing ( so long as the balance of harm outweighs the benefits then WILL NOT apply the exclusionary rule. Harms Social and Judicial Costs: Suppressing truth Freeing criminals Excluding reliable evid Benefits stopping certain sig enough police wrongdoing Culpability: intentional, reckless, grossly neg Recurring systematic neg Thus, as long as no culpability and not recurring systematic neg then scale tips in favor of NOT excluding evid b/c of the harms will then outweigh Thus, these cases measure deterrence by balancing police culpability against granting windfalls to Ds Basically under this rule/holding, the cop must be the equivalent of criminally culpable in vio the 4th amm. Even compared to Leon, this std is DEF a shift b/c now the deterrence rationale seeks to regulate ONLY gross vio of the 4th amm meaning either in levels of culpability or the systematic character of the neg. Dissent Argues that we should go back to the whole, integrated system rather than stick with this fragmented one. Davis v. United States(2011) (Alito, J.) The cops relied on a facially valid law (the law in Belton) to search the arrestees passenger compartment of the car after they handcuff him and put him in a diff car. BUT during the appeal, the Belton case was overruled by Gant which held that can only search the compartment if the arrestee is unsecured and within reach of it. COA held that Gant now applies, thus this incident WAS a 4th amm vio and should exclude the evid. Sup ct disagrees. Hold ( Even if it is a 4th amm vio, exclusionary rule should NOT apply b/c it is only as to deterrence and here the cops acted reasonably and re cops are NOT neg. Here, the cops were re b/c followed binding precedent ( thus NOT neg. Thus, this ct merged the re cop test in Leon and the isolated neg test in Herring so that the rule is ( Reasonable officers are, by definition, NOT negligent. This case ensures that the rationale of Herring is extended to almost EVERY case. Thus, it makes sure that the Herring balancing test is applied to ALL 4th amm vio. Big Picture From Cases When does exclusionary rule DEF apply. If there is a simple, ordinary violation of the 4th amm = exclude evid. Ex) cop trespasses on prop without search warrant = easy Gets trickier when cops are relying on someone else when acting. In these cases exclusion likely will not apply. Standing and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree--Generally Standing Standing refers to the defendants ability to challenge the introduction of evidence at trial. Only those defendants who are searched can raise a Fourth Amendment claim. Essentially, standing is established by showing the police invaded this defendants reasonable expectation of privacy. If the evidence used against the defendant at trial was obtained through the unconstitutional search of a third party, the defendant has no standing ro object to the search, nor the introduction of that evidence at trial. Case Overview United States v. Matlock (1974): where multiple people have joint access to or control of premises, any can consent to police search under assumption the risk doctrine Rakas v. Illinois (1978): car passenger lacks Fourth Amendment interest in glove compartment or trunk Minnesota v. Olson (1990): overnight guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in occupants home Georgia v. Randolph (2006): brief purely commercial associates present on premises lack widely shared social expectations of co-inhabitants in privacy of home Minnesota v. Carter(1998) (Rhenquist, C.J.) Cop got tip that saw people in apt window dealing drugs. Cop went to go look and while standing on curtilage, looked through window and saw people dealing drugs. While getting search warrant, arrested two men. After got search warrant, searched apt and found evid. Found out that the two men were from out of state, never been to apt before, and solely using the apt just for a couple of hours to bag the drugs. Two men move to suppress the evid b/c unre search. Hold ( only those defendants who are searched have standing to raise 4th amm claims like exclusion of evid. So if the search of the apt is unre does that give the two guests standing to suppress the evid? Standing follows the violation Hypo ( If cops commit illegal act that invades YOUR privacy, but does not invade my privacy. But the cops find MY drugs in your house then question is whether I have standing to suppress evid based on cops searching YOUR stuff. I would lack standing b/c my privacy was not invaded by cop. Thus, I cant move to suppress the evid. However, YOU would have standing to object to the evid b/c illegal search of YOUR house. BUT what if we change hypo above to match this case ( X and Y are in the same house (Xs house). Cops illegally search Xs house while Y is there. Find Ys drugs there. X will DEF have standing to challenge b/c it is Xs house. What about Y? ( Depends on what Ys privacy rights are in the house AND that answer depends on the type of stay in the residence ( have to determine Ys nexus to the home: overnight guest or merely present? Overnight guest = has an expectation of privacy If this is the case then Y would have standing Reason why if you are staying in hotel = have expectation of privacy there. Merely present = no privacy expectation when you are in the home. If this is the case then Y would LACK standing. Ex) guy delivering a pizza = merely present HERE ( held that the Ds were closer to the merely present category b/c they were only in the apt for a couple of house, doing business, and not overnight guests. Thus, they LACKED STANDING! Business relationships do NOT have same privacy expectations as personal relationships. Concurrence; Justice Breyer: argues that no-one was searched in Carter and so standing issue need not be reached. Strong linkage of standing to invasion of privacy Justice Scalia: searches limited to people whose person, house, papers or effects have been illegally searched or seized. Fourth Amendment remedies limited to those who have suffered Fourth Amendment wrongs United States v. Byrd(2018): court adopts property analysis to determine Fourth Amendment ability to challenge search. Applies customary understanding of property law to hold that driver of rental car has bailment in car even though not listed on the rental agreement United States v. Payner(1980): Standing Doctrine permits the state to engage in illegal searches of third parties for evidence against a defendant. The absence of a remedy incentivized wrongdoing (Mapp). Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine excludes any illegally-obtained evidence. But, must separate the fruits issue from standing issue. Under Wong Sun fruit of the poisonous tree must be excluded unless (1) some independent source would have led to the evidence or (2) there is sufficient attenuation to remove the taint of illegality Thus, 4th amm req a two-step analysis: Standing Analysis: claimant must show the cops did something illegal to the claimant. If can prove this, then move to (2) ( Fruits Analysis: claimant must show that the illegality CAUSED the cops to find the evid the claimant seeks to suppress This is the causation analysis ( that it was the (1) cause in fact (but for cause) AND (2) the proximate cause. [PART OF THE ANALYSIS ABOVE NEED BOTH TO CAUSE] Cause in fact ( But for X, the outcome wouldnt have happened Proximate ( Maybe something DID cause X BUT was it foreseeable at the time that it would cause that? There could be multiple but for chains and we have to ask if the illegal act poisons ALL the steps in the chain OR were there other routes for discovering that evid that was used so that interrupts the chain and makes it so that no proximate cause. Standing addresses whether a defendant is entitled to raise a Fourth Amendment claim. The fruits doctrine identifies what evidence should be suppressed consequent to an initial constitutional violation Case Overview Wong Sun v. United States (1963): the exclusionary remedy applies to evidence indirectly derived from the violation; Attenuation doctrine: passage of time and free will may dissipate taint of (i.e., cure) any police violation of the constitution United States v. Ceccolini (1978): attenuation occurs if witness testifies out of own free will, rather than in response to evidence discovered during illegal search Nix v. Williams (1984): police violation insufficient to justify exclusion if evidence would have been inevitably discovered by an alternative source. Must be a basis in fact, readily verifiable, for the conclusion that discovery would have occurred Murray v. United States (1988): police violation insufficient to justify exclusion if evidence obtained from an independent source, and not solely by exploiting the original illegality Hudson v. Michigan (2006): attenuation can occur not only when the causal connection is remote, but also when suppression would not serve the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee violated Hypos Ex) Cops search Xs home illegally and find evid that leads to them searching Ys home (also illegally). Searching Ys home leads to evid that can be used against X and Y. Y has standing v. the evid found out his place b/c of illegal search of his place. X has standing v. the evid found in his home b/c of illegal search (directly) AND v. the evid found at Ys home b/c it is fruits of an illegal search (indirectly). Ex) Cops search Xs home legally and find evid that leads them to search Ys home illegally which then produces evid that can be used against X and Y. Y has standing v. evid found at his place b/c illegal search of his place. X DOES NOT have standing to go v. evid found at his house (b/c it was legal) OR the evid found at Ys home bc not fruit of an illegal search AND the illegal search was just of Ys house, not X. Case that Shows This Two Step Analysis Wong Sun v. United States(1961) (Brennan, J.) Look below at facts and extra info on what is going on ( Facts Narcotics agents watching Hom Way for 6 weeks and then arrest him and find heroin. He snitches and says got heroin from Blackie Toy that runs a laundry mat on Levenmore street. Cops go and search the laundry mat and arrest Blackie Toy. Ct holds that cops lacked PC to go to laundry mat since the informant is not sufficiently reliable and the info is not super specific. THUS ( the search and the arrest is ILLEGAL. At the laundry mat, they found no narcotics BUT he told them that I am not selling but that Johnny Yee is selling and gave them his address Toys statement is the fruit of the illegal arrest. Here the evid is the statement BUT it does not matter if evid is tangible or intangible. It is still evid which can be fruit. Cops go to the address and find Yee and find heroin on him. Yee told them that he got the heroin from Toy (so he corroborates the arrest of Toy) and Wong Sun. Cops then find Wong Sun and arrest him and causes him to confess saying that him and Toy were selling it. The arrest was illegal and so the confession was the fruit of an illegal arrest.  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/CBE396B0-1290-9840-A6B6-AC5D4463F1E5.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Analysis Regarding Toy: Evid that comes in against Toy Homs statement Yees statement Heroin got from Yee Wong Suns confession Does T have standing to suppress this evid? Well the arresting of him was illegal and the search of his business was also illegal( THUS his 4th amm rights were violated so that gives him STANDING! Thus, Toy has standing to challenge all subsequent evid that is in the direct chain of causation of that illegal search and arrest. Which evid = a Fruit that Toy can challenge? But for the illegal arrest of Toy, Toy would not have made the statement, but for Toys statement cops would not have got to Yee, but for finding Yee the cops would not have found the heroin and got Yees statement, but for getting Yees statement cops would not have got the confession from Wong Sun. Chain of but for causes and not hint of any interruption. THUS, the heroin and Yees statements were all fruits of the illegal arrest that caused Toy to make the statement that led to those things (also a fruit of the illegal arrest). So the illegal arrest of Toy taints all of that subsequent received evid (heroin, Yees statement, and Wong Suns confession).  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/0FEB8EA5-3704-8C4D-8043-8D3DFB210626.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Analysis Regarding Wong Sun: So would usually ONLY have standing to exclude his own confession The only illegality that happens to Wong Sun is his illegal arrest so he LACKS standing to object to all the prior illegalities b/c did not violate his rights. Diff than Toy who can object to a lot more evid b/c his illegal arrest LED to all those fruits.  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/4D46E787-8D86-A845-A26D-1A4173B84453.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  BUT ct held that Wong Sun cant even challenge his confession b/c it was too attenuated Attenuation means lack of proximate cause So here had standing to argue against his confession BUT the evid was not a fruit b/c failed the fruit analysis by lacking proximate cause. Ct held that Wong Suns voluntary act of going BACK to the police station days after release to make the confession = intervening, superseding cause Held that a confession is an autonomous choice that indiv independently has so that is a BREAK in the chain so cant say that the illegal arrest CAUSED person to voluntarily confess. So generally fruits of an illegal search must be excluded BUT attenuated cer such as a confession allows such evid in Fits the modern deterrence rationale Dont want to punish cops just for a windfall ( when a person autonomously confesses on own accord Fits uncomfortably with the judicial integrity rationale. However, could argue that such confession is STILL a fruit of a prior illegal act so sits uncomfortably with the 4th amm. Note: In this case ct was not worried about Yee b/c not part of the suit. Attenuation and Causation for Fruits Analysis Core question is whether the illegal event is sufficiently remote from the legal one as to preclude exclusion of the evidence at trial Under Hudson there is two types of attenuation (1) Ordinary Event Attenuation (illegal event is too remote from legal event to taint the investigation) and (2) Constitutional Interest attenuation (the interest violated by the police is too remote from purpose of excluding evidence to justify exclusion. United States v Ceccolini: Problem with attenuation is that chain of causation may be extended over time. Links between illegality and evidence may be straight and uninterrupted. However, the distance along the causation chain of events may be sufficiently great to undermine the illegality. Decisions of witnesses to talk are generally seen as the free, independent, and voluntary acts of the witness, negating the illegality. Longer time between the illegal search and discovery of the evidence, more likely that court will find the taint to be dissipated. Same goes for distance between illegality and discovery Fruits as Tort-Law causation analysis Tort Law: But for negligence the injury would not have happened (but for) and that negligence is responsible for the injury Fruits analysis: the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines (alternative causes-in-fact) and Attenuation Doctrine (opposite of prox. Cause) States can undermine but for causes OR proximate causes by using attenuation doctrine (like in Wong Sun), and there are two separate doctrines that the state can use to est an intervening cause.  Independent Source In Utah v. Strieff Thomas expanded the scope of the independent source doctrineFactor Test Temporal proximity (close in time) Intervening circumstances Valid warrant Warrant predated stop Warrant was unconnected with the stop Purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct Purpose seems to entail subjective approach relying on officers motivation that would be inconsistent with Fourth Amendment docrineNegligence not intentional or reckless Inevitable Discoveryhad you not discovered evidence from illegal route, you would have discovered the evidence in a typical legal manner (inevitably). Usually an intervening cause must be sub in order to break the chain. BUT the doctrines above do NOT have to break the chain, they just have to identify an alternative route. If cops can state an alternative legal way of how they gathered the evid then they can rely on that to admit the evid in at trial. Murray v. United States(1988) (Scalia, J.) cops have people under surveillance in warehouse and find that they are sneaking in drugs into it. However, they discovered this evid illegally (no search warrant). Does the fact that found the evid illegally preclude cops from using this evid in an affidavit to prove PC in order to get a search warrant? Well this illegal search of evid would lead to other evid (fruits) being used against D giving D standing to suppress such evid. BUT gvts move is to undermine the but for (factual) causation in order to argue that there are no fruits here to suppress. Here, gvt undermined the but for causation by using the Independent Source Doctrine Gvt discussed the data that cops collected PRIOR to the illegal search, which were INDEPENDENT to the illegal search, and pointing to the fact that did not use the evid got from illegal search in order to meet PC required to get a search warrant. Thus, magistrate made decision to give search warrant without any evid got from the illegal search. Thus, gvt argued that sure there was some evid gained illegally but that was not the source for the evid using at trial. The source for evid using at trial was from legal evid that was independent from the illegal search. Hold ( The evid is admissible b/c it was gained after a search warrant which was gained based on independently gathered info that was not tainted by illegality. Concerns: Allows cops to reverse engineer Ex) I illegally search bag and see you have heroin. So I now know you are guilty. I will just follow you around until you open bag in public and I can see in plain view the heroin = get it legally. Thus, so long as cop finds an indep source then taint of illegality just dissipates. Also, this allows cops to be reliable 100% of the time. Strange Fruit: New forms of Attenuation Under Hudson there is two types of attenuation (1) Ordinary Event Attenuation (illegal event is too remote from legal event to taint the investigation and (2) Constitutional Interest attenuation (the interest violated by the police is too remote from purpose of excluding evidence to justify exclusion. Scalia introduced a new attenuation doctrine based on protected interests. In Hudson v. Michigan, Scalia separates the interests related to the execution of a warrant from those related to its issuance The execution issues are too remote from the purposes of exclusion to justify the remedy Overview of Cases Utah v. Streiff (2016): presence of outstanding warrant is sufficient attenuation to preclude exclusion of evidence from otherwise unlawful negligent stop (causal attenuation) Hudson v. Michigan (2006): attenuation can occur not only when the causal connection is remote, but also when suppression would not serve the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee violated (interest attenuation) United States v. Havens (1980): evidence excluded as fruits of illegal search may be used to impeach criminal defendant Illinois v. James (1990): evidence excluded as fruits of illegal search may not be used to impeach other witnesses than criminal defendant Utah v. Strieff (event/causal attenuation): Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell received an anonymous tip about drug sales in a South Salt Lake residence, so he surveyed the area over a short period of time and speculated there was drug activity taking place. Fackrell saw Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. leaving the residence and stopped him for questioning. During the stop, Fackrell discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. During the lawful search after his arrest, Fackrell found methamphetamine and a drug pipe on Strieffs person. The district court ruled that, although Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct an investigatory stop, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia obtained during the lawful search incident to arrest justified the admission of that evidence for trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts ruling, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed and held that the evidence should have been suppressed because the warrant that was the basis for the arrest was discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop. The Court held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendments protections should not be excluded from evidence when the costs of its exclusion outweighs its benefits. Exclusion is not justified when the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovered evidence is too attenuated. To determine whether the connection is attenuated, courts must examine the temporal proximity of the discovery of the evidence to the unconstitutional conduct, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the police misconduct. Based on the analysis of those factors, when a valid warrant is discovered after an unconstitutional investing atory stop, the connection between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence incident to a lawful arrest based on the warrant is sufficiently attenuated. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent in which she argued that the Fourth Amendments exclusionary rule was intended to prevent police officers from taking advantage of their own unconstitutional conduct, which was the case here. Because the initial unconstitutional stop was clearly calculated to procure further evidence, it was not an intervening circumstance that attenuated the connection between the misconduct and the discovery of evidence. Justice Sotomayor also argued that allowing the police such free rein essentially created a group of second-class citizens that could be subjected to police invasion of constitutional rights at a whim. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in all but the last portion of the dissent. In her separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the discovery of the evidence was too closely connected to the unconstitutional investigatory stop for the valid warrant to attenuate the connection. Because the two events were closely connected in time, the warrant itself was not an intervening circumstance, and the police conduct was purposeful and flagrant, the exclusionary rule should apply in cases like this one. Justice Ginsburg joined in the dissent. Hudson v. Michigan(2006) (Scalia, J.) (interest attenuation) Cops had search warrant to search Ds house but failed to knock and announce. This case discuses a doctrinal attenuation Usually we do the ordinary event attenuation The causal event is TOO REMOTE from the outcome to count BUT here we do constitutional interest attenuation The interest protected by the consti is too remote from purposes of excluding evid to count. Hold ( evid need not be excluded when cops vio of K/A rule. Cops had a warrant so even if failed to K/A, would have inevitable come in anyways. Exclusion is warranted ONLY when there is a consti vio (like not having a search warrant) BUT failing to K/A is a tort vio and not a consti vio = does NOT result in exclusion Instead, the better remedy is for a civil suit! Kind of weird case though b/c in tort doctrine expect something to actually intervene not the case here. True that cops entered illegally b/c no K/A but that is just a tort vio since had a warrant. Note: Weird case. This case was used later in Shief case ( cops arrested criminal in street illegally. BUT found out there was a warrant for his arrest anyways. Ct here used the logic under Hudson ( cops had a warrant and that warrant would have inevitable led to arresting D so doesnt matter if legally or illegally did it. Other Cases Where Holding/Rule Imp But Not the FactsUse Fruits to Impeach Witness United States v. Havens(1980) (White, J.) permits the prosecution to use the fruits of an illegal search in order to attack Ds credibility on cross-examination. Ex) If D takes the stand and denies doing the crime, but cops have evid that they did it. Then prosecutor can use that evid to impeach D at trial. Use this as a disincentive for D to take the stand and lie. Jones precludes the prosecution from using the fruits of an illegal search to attack a non-defendant witnesss credibility on cross-examination 5th Amendment No personshall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Prevents (1)compelled, (2)testimonial (witness), (3) self-incrimination (against self) in a criminal case(all elements must apply or no 5th Amend. protection. Scope of 5th Amendment As long as the state cannot prosecute, the Fifth Amend. does not apply Immunity The state WANTS to compel testimony from civilians in order to get leads/incriminating evid. Especially if that person is the target of the investigation. BUT such targets usually dont want to give that info to the state so they will invoke their 5th amm privilege Thus, to get that info, the gvt must find a way AROUND the 5th amm protection. One way AROUND 5th amm Protection ( Immunity Immunity the promise not to prosecute third party by immunizing that third partys testimony covered by the 5th amm privilege. An easy way that state can make the 5th amm NOT apply is by knocking out the self-incrimination element by granting immunity. If the person cannot be criminally prosecuted for testimony then it is not self-incriminating Thus, that person wont be able to assert 5th amm privilege. Note: can still be civilly prosecuted Immunity removes ability to self-incriminate by indemnifying witness against future criminal prosecution Types of Immunity Transactional (Broadest): all transactions related to evidence produced. Cannot use any evidence obtained in any trial Use and Derivative Use (Medium Scope): promise not to use the testimony in this case and all future cases, as well as any incriminating evidence derived from testimony Can use evidence form independent source Use (narrowest scope): promise not to use the testimony in the current trial Can use evidence derived from testimony Does the Immunity Sufficiently Supplant the 5th amm? The state must provide an immunity that MATCHES the 5th amm privilege in order to supplant the 5th amm privilege so that D cannot assert it. Thus, we have to ask what is the SCOPE of the immunity (which of the 3 above) in order to see if it is broad enough to cover the 5th amm enough to supplant it. CASES Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892): use immunity does not sufficiently protect Fifth Amendment interests of witnesses. Fifth Amendement applies to any proceeding where evidens is compelled and giving of answers risks incrimination(implication is the Fifht Amendment requires at least derivative use immunity from prosecution and other investigatory leads There was a fed statute that stated that a mere witness in a criminal trial that is not against that witness, cannot assert the 5th amm privilege. Ct had to answer whether this immunity statute sufficiently supplanted the 5th amm privilege. Ct held that the 5th amm applies to ANY proceeding where evid is compelled and giving of answers risks incrimination Thus, true that the privilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is NOT limited to only criminal matters that are against you. Thus, ct held ( This immunity statute has the scope of Use Immunity, but the 5th amm is BROADER than this type of immunity so the statute does NOT sufficiently supplant it. Remember the immunity granted must be EQUALLY as broad as the 5th amm. Here, the Use Immunity fails to adequately protect the 5th amm interests of the witness. Ct demands that the statute must grant AT LEAST Derivative Use Immunity so as to adequately get rid of the self-incrimination element and thus supplant the 5th amm privilege. Brown v. Walker (1896): transactional (absolute) immunity sufficient to protect individual compelled to testify or produce evidenceDoes not require transactional immunity Grand jury case where witness appears and asserts 5th amm privilege. BUT there is a statute that grants the witness Transactional Immunity. Hold Ct upholds this statute and says that b/c it is transactional immunity (which is like absolute immunity) then it is def broad enough to cover the 5th amm privilege so it sufficiently supplants it. ALSO see that the three different immunities go to protection from criminal proceedings. BUT there are other consequences that can occur from being forced to speak besides having it used against you in criminal trial. Could result in Infamy related to First Amm Issues OR Could also result in privacy/dignity issues related to general public disgrace (opprobrium)  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/5D85683D-54D2-5F48-9235-FD0EBF3A2E4C.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/63DDB2DE-3E9B-2D4B-ABB9-5F66983FBFD9.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  If in the compelled testimony, person has to admit embarrassing stuff then that might not result in that testimony being used against them in criminal trial BUT it could subject them to infamy/public disgrace Ex) If Weinstein had to discuss thing like his turn ons then could impact his dignity and or subject him to infamy as a sexual harasser. Ct here rejects extending the protection as far as the first amm privacy issues would go (infamy) So 5th amm does NOT track the 1st amm. Only goes as far as criminal proceedings. Kastigar v. United States (1972) (Powell, J.): use and derivative use immunity sufficient to track scope of Fifth Amendment privilege. The privilege does not prohibit all future criminal prosecution of a witness, even using independently gathered evidence (transactional immunity)( it only places the witness in the same position as if they had never testified (they are not the source of incriminating evidence). Katigar only prohibits the use of compelled testimony as (1) an investigatory lead to other evidence and (2) leading to evidence obtained by focusing on a witness. Another grand jury case where a witness appears and asserts 5th amm privilege. So from Counselman we know that if prosecution grants use immunity then that is not enough to supplant so witness may still assert 5th amm and from Brown we know that if prosecution grants transactional immunity then that is broad enough to supplant 5th amm so wit cant assert it. Well what if prosecution grants derivative use immunity? D argue ( 5th amm is VERY broad, so transactional immunity is required to match it. D wants this b/c that immunity is the most protective for him. Ct REJECTS this Ct held that the 5th amm protects from incrimination and NOT privacy Transactional immunity is BROADER than the 5th amm privilege b/c goes so far as to also protect also privacy, not just incrimination. However, Use Immunity + Derivative Use Immunity TOGETHER are sufficiently broad enough (and not overly broad) to protect just from incrimination ( Thus, those together supplant the 5th amm. BUT the 5th amm does NOT protect person if the gvt independently finds the evid. So long as the evid is found through an indep source, then can use such evid to prosecute the person that is granted the immunity. THUS ( This is a powerful protection b/c ct is saying that in order to prevent person from asserting 5th amm then have to promise that the testimony wont be used against that person in current case (use immunity) OR in future cases or used to find other evid to use against person (derivative use immunity). Dont need transactional immunity to supplant 5th amm, the above is enough. BUT if can prove that discovered that certain evid indep then can still use it to prosecute the person. This Idea  INCLUDEPICTURE "../../breelove/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/B22192C6-1F76-EE4A-936D-B67308DD1517.png" \* MERGEFORMAT  Extra Note: If someone wants to assert 5th amm priv, then that is a personal priv they get to assert. They do not have to tell you why they are pleading the 5th. If asked why, all they have to say is that it is self-incriminating BUT they could be lying, which is party of the issue. Thus, prosecutor cannot ask things like are you sure BUT they can: Offer a plea deal in exchange for voluntary testimony OR Can offer that person immunity If immunity is supplied, prosecutor can force D to accept that immunity. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Necessary elements (1) compulsion (the sort of threats that are constitutionally impermissible, coerce testimony) (2) Incrimination (the sorts of prosecutions covered by privilege (3) testimony (the sorts of communications that are protected) A witness must expressly assert privilege against self-incrimination. If the witness prefers not to speak, she must first remain silent Aaron Burr Case: When a witness is asked to testify, it is the witness's perspective that matters and it doesnt matter what the Government is trying to prove. Gov't cannot ask why you are asserting your privilegeeven if the invocation is illegitamite. The assertion of 5th amendment right, the state cannot compel or scrutinize the reason because it would force the witness to reveal the reason they are asserting their 5th amend. Privilege. Prosecution may not comment on the defendants failure to testify or take the stand and defendant may instruct the jury not to draw any negative inferences Case overview Chavez v. Martinez (2003): Fifth Amendment violation complete only when the testimony is used against the defendant in a criminal prosecution McKune v. Lile (2002): conditioning probationers admission to treatment program on confessing prior misconduct was not compulsion United States v. Ward (1980): whether sanction is civil or criminal for purposes of Fifth Amendment depends on terms of statute Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004): revealing identity unlikely to be incriminating Salinas v. Texas (2013): to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a defendant must invoke the privilege Compulsion This concerns the sort of threats that the gvt might use to coerce testimony which are constitutionally IMPERMISSIBLE! Things that are impermissible: Prosecutor may NOT comment on a persons failure to testify or take the stand If Prosecutor does then then mistrial is declared Ex) If prosecutor says D will say X then that is saying that D will take the stand = MISTRIAL! The defendant may instruct the jury not to draw any negative inferences from fact that not taking the stand or not testifying. This element varies depending on the setting Prison setting, interrogation room, or home = all diff Incrimination Refers to particular consequences of answering the states questionsrisk of criminal punishment Threats of civil sanctions may implicate 5th Amend. incrimination The legislature can determine the scope of the privilege by defining what counts as a crime Ward: strong presumption that statute creating civil sanction does not intend to punish Undermined by (1) Punitive intent (2) Punitive effect United States v. Ward(1980) (Rhenquist, J.) here had a statute that could result in a civil penalty AND a criminal penalty. Hold ( have to see if the sanction is direct towards the civil or the criminal penalty. B/c if testimony results ONLY in civil sanction then that is not covered by 5th amm b/c not subjecting D to criminal consequences. BUT ct held that must note that SOME civil sanctions may be so punitive that they are like criminal sanctions so that the 5th amm SHOULD apply. How to know whether sanction is really civl or criminal? ( it is a matter of statutory construction Thus, the leg plays a BIG role in deciding if this is a civil or criminal sanction, which affects the scope of the privilege. So here ct followed a Two Step Process: (1) What is the label of the statute civil or criminal? If criminal then 5th amm applies, the end. If civil then go to (2) ( (2) Ct has to check to see if the statute is punitive in intention or effect Ex) The forfeiture statute = technically civil BUT can be a VERY severe sanction. The two step process above serves like directions to the municipalities ( have the leg label it civil and dont make it too punitive = can make it to where Ds cant invoke 5th amm. Allen: providing mandatory treatment for sex offenders is civil rather than criminal Risk of incrimination affects defendants right to assert the privilege Real and appreciable risk Brown v. Walker: high risk of incrimination given ordinary operation of law Hiibel mentions both standards, but indicates a return to the higher real and appreciable standard Hibel cops got call from woman in car saying that bf fighting with her. Cops went to check it out. Found car on side of road and guy was outside, woman in the car. Guy refused to give his ID to the cops and asks for the cops to arrest him. This ct has to decide how great the threat of incrim must be in order to assert the 5th amm privilege. So was the cops demand for the guy to give ID pose a great threat of incrim? Well when cops get IDs, first thing they do is look you up in system to see if you are a criminal or not. So giving your ID allows cops to find out if you are a criminal or not. Ct looks at two diff standards: Prior case Hoffman applied the lower link in the chain std This is more protective of the D b/c a lower risk of self-incrim is sufficient enough to allow D to assert 5th amm. Lower std that D must meet. Prior case Brown applied the higher real and appreciable std Less protective b/c D must suffer real and appreciable risk of self-incrim to assert 5th amm. Higher std that D must meet. Ct here muddles up the two stds and suggests that the risk of incrimination must be really sub in order to assert the privilege. Thus, ct held that the stop and identify statute does NOT create a really sub risk of incrimination so D cannot assert privilege. These three precedents as to risk of incrimination left it pretty muddy as to what the level of risk must be. Link in a chain risk Hoffman v. United States: risk of incrimination evident from setting and implications of question Testimony Addresses the assertive content of the statement, rather than act of making the statement This applies to the sort of communications that are protected by the privilege. Testimony must be communicative. Thus, physical evid is NOT testimonial. Physical evid includes thins that are not communicative such as: Things such as: DNA, fingerprints, blood drawn (Schmerber), slurred speech Doe case D was asked to sign a form authorizing foreign banks to turn over his account records. Ct was asked if handwriting on these forms can be communicative so as to be testimonial? Ct laid out the follow Test: To be testimonial we must make sure that the evid is NOT physical and is communicative. BUT how do we know if something is communicative? Ct must see if the cruel trilemma is put on that person. If it is then it is communicative thus, testimonial! Cruel Trilemma If req someone to testify w/o giving them their 5th amm privilege then that places them in a bind called the cruel trilemma. If dont get the privilege then what will you do when gvt asks you something that will incriminate you? Well your options are: You confess You lie (perjury) You stay silent (could create negative inference and could result in contempt of ct) Hold ( the signature was NOT testimonial. If sign name as handwriting exemplar OR as key to release docs = NOT testimonial. BUT if signature somehow communicates something like it is me and not someone else = MAY be testimonial Not the case here- just asked him to sign in order to release docs = an act of making a statement which does not make the person face the cruel trilemma = not communicative. The cruiel trilemma emphasizes assertive content of statement rather than the act of making a statement. Cruel trilemma analysis emphasizes assertive content of statement Physical evidence is not testimonial (Schmerber) Handwriting is not testimonial (Muniz) (Performing a mental exercise might be) Speakingi.e., the mere act of making statementis not testimonial. Only the content of the statement is testimonial Testimony in non-custodial setting Non-custodial D is NOT in police custody (if at a station then it is voluntary, not in police custody) This differentiation matters b/c if in police custody then there is a presumption that testimony was compelled. BUT if not in police custody then ct will NOT presume this! (Salinas) In these cases, cops are not forcing you to speak, you have a choice to remain silent. BUT if you speak then you forfeit that right. Brogan D is a union guy. Fed agents know that he is doing bad stuff but dont know the extent. So they show up to his door and start asking questions. Asked if he is doing bad stuff and he says no (which is a lie). D was then prosecuted for lying to a fed agent (which is a crime). D argued that if accused of something randomly at your home then natural you are surprised and will naturally lie not much of a choice. Ct REJECTS. There are other options besides lying! D could have JUST remain silent ( with non-custodial cases, there isnt really a cruel trilemma b/c if remain silent here = will not be arrested for contempt since it is not part of a custodial type of questioning. Or (in order to prevent the use of the silence discussed below in Salinas), D could assert 5th amm privilege and then remain silent. Murphy was also another case where it was non-custodial b/c guy had an obligation to appear at sex offender therapy program and he revealed info at the program. Salinas v. Texas(2013) (Alito, J.) cop doing murder investigation and asked guy to answer some questions. Guy agreed and went to the station voluntarily. Cop asked if a certain test would show shell casings would match guys shotgun. Guy surprised and did not answer. Here the interview was VOLUNTARY. So as in Brogan, D can remain silent in these type of cases, which will not result in arrest for contempt. BUT note that if you remain silent then prosecution can still use your silence in the subsequent criminal prosecution and point it out to the jury. Why? ( b/c silence is ambiguous dont know why D chooses to stay silent Solution ( D will want to make sure that it is CLEAR as to why they are remaining silent by expressly invoking their 5th amm privilege This will protect the D from the prosecutor using their silence in presenting their case to the jury and making them draw negative inferences. Remember, for non-custodial cases, the ct will NOT presume compulsion or incrimination. Thus, b/c ct does not presume that witness is worried about self-incrim, then that witness MUST ASSERT the 5th amm priv in order to kill off any ambiguity as to WHY he is staying silent. Thus ( non-custodial witnesses that want to remain silent, but dont want the silence to be used against them must expressly assert that privilege. Police Interrogation and Miranda Only applies to custodial interrogation. The Miranda process enables the defendant autonomously to regulate the interrogation Custody is presumed to be coercive Interrogator must inform defendant of her rights Defendant can call for an attorney when the process becomes too onerous Waivers are presumptively coerced An accused may waive rights if she does so (1) knowingly and (2) voluntarily. Miranda bolsters a defendants ability to choose whether or not to submit to questioning Presumes all interrogations are custodial Requires Interrogator to give defendant warnings Allows defendant to request aid of an attorney Case Overview Bram v. United States (1897): under the Fifth Amendment, a confession is admissible only if voluntary, and so made without threats or promises of leniency Brown v. Mississippi (1936): due process bars whipping a defendant to extract a confession Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944): due process prohibits interrogating a defendant for 38 hours without a break Watts v. Indiana (1949): four-day intensive interrogation violates due process Massiah v. United States (1964): Sixth Amendment prohibits uncounseled interrogation once defendant has been charged Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) in unique circumstances, Sixth Amendment may prohibit uncounseled interrogation before charge Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Fifth Amendment prohibits interrogation without first informing defendant of rights to remain silent and to have a counsel provided for them, and consequences of waiving rights The Progression of cts trying to confront concerns of the Reliability of Confessions Until 1930s cts allowed cops to get info by any kind of way, including torture (strip naked (Bram), whipping (Brown), etc) In 1961 Mapp came down and idea of the need to regulate cops was the goal Mapp ct did it via 4th amm (exclusionary rule). BUT how to further regulate as to interrogations? Up until this point, cts have been using CL voluntariness std under DP clause (Bram, Brown, Watts) BUT then in 1964, cops panic and switch to a 6th amm approach (Messiah and Escobedo) 6th amm: right to counsel BUT the 5th amm also has a version of right to counsel Messiah and Escobedo used the 5th amm BUT we still study them b/c gives us a sense as to what Miranda was doing when switched to 5th amm Gradually, cts began to focus on the 5th amm came about with Miranda, which gave another way to regulate the cops alongside Mapp by requiring cops to give warnings to suspects before interrogate Miranda ct was trying to end the importance of confessions BUT later cases went against that vision. Precursors to Miranda Concerns around reliability of confessions Choice: avoiding cruel trilemma of lying, incriminating, or having inference drawn from silence Privacy: defendant has right to avoid government extracting proprietary information Cruelty: society has interest in preventing government-induced moral fragmentation Bram (1897) D is accused of killing shipmaster. Cops strip him naked to get his confession. Ct held ( For a confession to be admissible, it must be free and voluntary meaning, not extracted by threats or violence, obtained by direct or implied promises, or by any improper influence. Thus, inherent compulsion and fraudulent inducement (like if cop makes improper promise) = coercion = incantational. Note: cops cant offer sentencing discounts, only prosecutor can. Thus, confession here was obtained by express intimidation = involuntary. Ct viewed this as an issue related to voluntariness std in the DP clause. This case created a broad voluntariness principle so that the confession CANNOT be a product of compulsion or inducement, but instead must be a product of independent, free choice. Highly protective std for suspects. DP clause(This clause prohibits irregular proceedings Made it applicable to fed AND state cases BUT case remained dormant for state cases UNTILL Brown What matter most under Bram was that suspect is able to decide for herself Inherent compulsion and fraudulent inducement violate the Fifth Amendment. Not just threats, but promises too are impermissible. The idea is that the suspect must be able to determine for herself whether she wishes to confess. So even psychological trickery is off the table Brown Black suspects were suspected of murder and cops made them strip and were whipped in order to get their confessions. This was going on a lot during this racist time. Cts got fed up with it and stated to apply Bram in reviewing the voluntariness of confessions under the DP clause in a state cases. Here, ct looked to see if vol or not by way of the totality of the cir Hold ( The tactics used here to get the confessions fell OUTSIDE what usually occurs in normal criminal proceedings = vio DP clause and not vol. While ct gave the test, it dies not define what cir make it not vol find out more Court began to police voluntariness of confessions in state cases The cases tend to fall into some rough patterns in terms of the relevant police behavior Torture through whipping (defendants were African American) Extended detention and sleep deprivation (Ashcraft) Repeated relentless, lengthy interrogation over a period of days (Watts) Watts v. Indiana(1949) (Frankfurter, J.) suspect is questioned by cops from night until morning with some small breaks. Eventually, got the confession. Issue: did the pressure from the sustained pressure from the sustained questioning undermine the Ds DP rights? Hold ( YES, sustained pressure made the confession involuntary. BUT ct fails to state how MUCH pressure = sustained pressure Ct here viewed voluntariness diff than Bram In Bram ANY coercion is unconst and makes confession invol BUT this ct just held that the coercion created by sustained pressure makes confession invol This case and cases throughout the 50s stuck to the voluntariness std, but then realized every case was holding that under this std, all confessions are involuntary. So in 1964, cts start to shift away from DP clause and towards 6th amm starting with Messiah ( Massiah v. United States(1964) (Stewart, J.) D is released on bail (charged for drugs) and cops get the other co-D who is also released on bail to wear a wire and go talk to D. Cops listen in on convo where D incriminates himself. Hold ( Cops actions vio Ds 6th amm right 6th amm is about adversarial proceeding so charging is imp b/c that signals the commencement of adversarial proceedings AND 6th amm grants D right to counsel. Thus, once charged, the adversarial process begins and once adversarial process begins, D cannot be interrogated UNLESS counsel is present. Process: arrested, indicted by grand jury OR charged by prelim hearing by mag, arraigned (plea guilty or not), convicted. HERE we are PAST pure inquisitorial process and INTO the adversarial process (pre-trial) b/c D has already been charged and here cops vio Ds 6th amm right b/c interrogated him w/o counsel present. Thus, this ct prohibits cops purposefully eliciting incriminating info after indictment. 6th amm is imp b/c requires there to be an att present to work as a check on the adversarial process between the cops and the D. Two analytical tracks Voluntariness: nature of coercive pressure placed on the suspect. J. Jactkson(thinks the remedy is a lawyer who acts as medium between accused and state Adversarial-ness: Whetehr the adversary system has commenced. The Massiah rule prohibited the prsecution purposefully eliciting incriminating information after indictment. State must cease all attempts to interrogate defendant absent her lawyer after they have formally charged her Excobedo v. Illinois(1964) (Goldberg, J.) D was arrested for murder and questioned for murder (not charged yet) and asked to speak to his att. But when att came, cops wouldnt let att in. Cops got confession from D. Issue after Massiah 6th amm apply to pre-indictment? Answer SHOULD be NO b/c 6th amm is about the adversarial process (criminal trial process) and NOT stuff before BUT ct here cheats a bit and says YES 6th amm applies at pre-charge as well. Ct came to this conclusion b/c: Held that once investigations focuses on certain target THEN 6th amm applies (even if not charged yet) and also Ct generally found that ( state could NOT intentionally create a situation that is likely to induce the suspect to make incriminating statements Thus, this holding was a work around in order to address cts real concerns: Ct disvaluing confessions and wanting cops to instead rely on their hard work to get extrinsic evid Cts worry over coerced interrogation This case is an outlier b/c pushes 6th amm FAR, maybe too far. Pushed beyond formal adversarial process and into informal adversarial process Thus, likely still argue that cant question without counsel after charged in order to comply with 5th amm. For this reason, ct switched it to 5th amm via Miranda Another issue here that ct addressed was that D invoked right to counsel and was denied Issue not in Massiah b/c D didnt know being interrog so did not ask for counsel BUT ct held here that not a bad idea to inform D of his rights b/c D cant enforce rights if he doesnt know them ( This idea is covered in Miranda Hedges on whether 6th Amen. Protections apply to pre-indictment questioning and avoids stating a general rul but adopts a fact-intensive approach o find that Escobedo has a Sixth Amendment right here. No impact per Miranda Police Interrogation: Miranda The Miranda process enables the defendant autonomously to regulate the interrogation Custody is presumed to be coercive Interrogator must inform defendant of her rights Defendant can call for an attorney when the process becomes too onerous Waivers are presumptively coerced An accused may waive rights if she does so (1) knowingly and (2) voluntarily. There is a limit to the way in which the government can gather evidence from the defendant. And extends the right to avoid self-incrimination into the interrogation room Miranda bolsters a defendants ability to choose whether or not to submit to questioning Presumes all interrogations are custodial Requires Interrogator to give defendant warnings Allows defendant to request aid of an attorney Miranda permits DF to waive 5th Amend. rights. Miranda concentrates on choice and cruelty by tying constitutional rights to procedural rules Df abilty to regulate turns on her decision to invoke rather than waive rights Miranda v. Arizona(1966) (Warren, C.J.) D arrested for kidnapping/rape and interrogated w/o being told rights and ended up confessing a couple hours later. Here, ct switched from 6th amm to 5th amm Again, 5th amm is privilege against compelling self-incrimination so limits the type of evid gvt can gather from the D Miranda extends right to avoid self-incrimination from the ct room and INTO the interrogation room Rejected the voluntariness std. Hold/Rule Custodial interrogation BY ITSELF is enough to demonstrate compulsion; thus, D must be informed of his rights BEFORE such custodial interrogation in order to rebut the presumption that anything said is inadmissible due to coercion. Warnings = prereq to overcome inherent pressures of custodial interrog. The rights = right to silence and right to att And if D invokes right to silence OR right to att, cops must STOP the interrog However, D MAY waive such rights as long as D knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. And to do so knowingly and intelligently D must be informed of rights. This is a high presumption AGAINST waiver. So if invoke a right but then interrog continues, then state has BOP to prove that D knowingly and intelligently waived right thereafter. And cant just point to the confession. Rights as dictated in Miranda Informed of right to remain silent Offset inherently coercive atmosphere of custody Anything said can and will be used against the individual in court Convey to the suspect the significance of the interrog in the process Right to counsel during questioning Defendant does not have to stand alone against forces of the state Right to have counsel provided (if indigent) Right may mean nothing if he cannot afford counsel The Point of Miranda Warnings Warnings bolster Ds ability to know when state is gathering evid AND their options when confronted with such questioning. Thus, it enables the D to autonomously regulate the interrogation room themselves! It does NOT prohibit confessions just makes the D invoke and/or waive such rights as to confessions. Remember the 3 concerns above: choice, privacy, and cruelty Miranda concentrates on choice and cruelty by tying constitutional rights to procedural rules Miranda worries that the interrog undermines dignity and choice (compelled to speak rather than CHOOSE to speak). Locations courthouse, police station, informal settings (like on the street) Diff locations cause diff levels of worry under Miranda In the courthouse when D stands to testify is low level b/c judge is there to regulate what is going on Questioning in police station is harder to regulate b/c judge is not there. Thus, Miranda tries to import judicial oversight into the interrogation room by setting up some proxies of ct in the room ( the D and Ds counsel. The collection of evid to be used at ct is going on in the police station so then ct wants to be able to ask as a RULE simply ( D, were you informed of those rights? Did you waive those rights? This way D and maybe Ds att can attest to procedure being appropriate. Gives ct some presumptions in moving forward with evid. If the clear warning procedure and rules dont go down then anything said is deemed invol/coerced so exclude any fruit of that coerced interrogation. Worries of Miranda and Solutions Two Worries Practice ( worry about psychological interrogation AND physical interrogation Place ( worry about incommunicado interrogation interrogate someone in isolation, away from public Solution ( Ct removes third degree physical interrog by adding in right to counsel so another can SEE if physical abuse is going on (not so isolated). Also states that BOTH physical and psychological manipulates are IMPERMISSIBLE! (broad decision) Note: in later cases, physical interrog does die down BUT psychological interrog remains. Ct here also thought confessions did not hold value (wanted copss to focus on extrinsic evid) so made it deliberately harder for cops to get convictions through confessions b/c giving D autonomy to control the interrogation Harder b/c what fool would waive rights after hearing them. BUT this view did not hold during later cases. The strong hurdle created in Miranda gives way in later cases b/c waiver is actually easy and done a lot! Custody Would a reasonable person in the suspects position understand she had the freedom to terminate questioning and leave. Non-custodial where the detention is (1) brief and public or (2) the suspects presence in a non-public setting is voluntary. Not custodial if (1) Terry Stop (2) interrogation is voluntary and (3) Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation Custody requires some form of detention at the hands of the government Detention in a prision cell is the central case of custody Case Overview: Custody Definition Berkemer v. McCarty (1984): Custody is determined by an objective standard: whether a reasonable person in the suspects position would understand her freedom to terminate questioning and leave J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011): where known or objectively apparent to any reasonable officer, childs age can feature into custody evaluation Purpose and Place Mathis v. United States (1968): purpose of the custody need not be related to the purpose of the interrogation to count under Miranda Howes v. Fields (2012): prison setting is not automatically custodial Beckwith v. United States (1976): questioning in suspects home usually noncustodial Orozco v. Texas (1969) questioning at suspects home custodial where circumstances indicate police-dominated atmosphere Minnesota v. Murphy (1984): required meeting with probation officer noncustodial given interview arranged by appointment at mutually convenient time Seizure as Custody New York v. Quarles (1984): custody at crime scene depends upon formal arrest or its equivalent Berkemer v. McCarty (1984): roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop is non-custodial Berkemer D was stopped for drunk driving. Cop asked if he drank. He answered yes. Miranda rights were never read to him. Thus, terry stop involved here. Issue: Does this stop amount to custodial interrogation? Hold: NO, Terry stops do not count as custodial becaue by definition they are brief and public, outside police-dominated atmosphere of the statation house Ct draws line between Terry Stops and incommunicado detention and states tht Terry Stops are NOT custodial b/c they are generally: Temporary and brief Suspects in Terry Stops dont feel completely at the mercy of cops When stopped for traffic vio re person would think that will be able to leave after get ticket, dont think that cops will take you to station. Public stop = not incommunicado One could argue that there is SOME coercion with Terr Stops BUT ct here views Miranda narrowly and finds that the coercion is not triggered to show custody unless it is incommunicado (private) + lengthy detention + re person dont think free to leave. Thus, here can presume that Ds decision to speak at the Terry Stop is voluntary. Only if the stop is custodial do we presume coercion and presume anything said w/o waiver is involuntary. Minnesota v. Murphy Probation req D to go to treatment program for sex offenders. At the program, confessed to a crime to counselor. Counselor told probation officer who called D into office. D again confessed in probation officers office. Ct held ( NOT custodial b/c there was no coercion here since D voluntarily went into probation officers office and spoke. Not custodial if the defendants presence is voluntary. Not custodial in the way Miranda worries about. Miranda worries about there being no choice and harm to dignity and being locked in an interrogation room could do that to you. BUT going voluntarily to a familiar surrounding where not FORCED to stay does not pose the same risk. True since probation officer req to go but can leave. Ct stated further that questioning in a police station is NOT custodial if Ds presence was voluntary ex) D drops by station to talk with cops about stuff = not custodial. If D was HELD and then req to speak to a counselor = custodial Takeaway from Berkemer and Murphy Thus, questioning is non-custodial if detention is brief and public (Berkemer) OR suspects presence in a non-public setting is voluntary (Murphy). The effect of the custody rule is to place a lot of diff types of police questioning OUTSIDE of the scope of Miranda Ex) Encountering people on the street is outside Miranda cop can just come up to you on the street, not tell you your rights, and start talking. J.D.B. v. North Carolina(2013) (Sotomayor, J.) Suspect is 13-year-old kid who his pulled out of class and put in closed doored conference room in school with cop and some teachers there. Legal guardian was not contacted. They questioned him about burglaries and he confesses. Ct was asked whether age could be factored into the obj test as to wheter custody or not The obj test ( would a re person feel free to terminate questioning and leave? Reasonable person includes the age of the suspect, as perceived by an officer Hold ( so long as the childs age was known to the cop at time of police questioning OR would have been obj apparent to any re cop, its inclusion in the custody analysis is consistent with obj nature of the test So can factor age into the obj analysis as long as cop knew or would obj know Held that in suspects pos allowed this and still keeps the std objective. Dissent Worry that this turns test subj b/c thinking about THIS D. Will lead to slippery slope where will also consider race, gender, etc. Maj ( Reject. The test is still obj and the only thing slightly less obj is age, but the only analysis there is NOT the specific age but whether kid or adult b/c not hard for cops to know this difference. Imp to consider b/c re kid and re adult would view ability to stop questioning or leave differently. Also in the case where cop is unsure if kid or adult then when in doubt, cops should play it safe and assume in custody so make sure to read the Miranda rights (safety net) Interrogation Interrogation=statements reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response; Ploys (questions that do not look like questions) are exempt from Miranda. Interrogation takes place ony when suspect thinks he is being asked questions by an agent of the state Interrogation=express questioning or its functional equivalent. Innis applies its own test narrowly: the Court permits ploys even if likely to elicit a response Real standard seems to be( Interrogation is limited to things that look to the suspect like police questioning Case Overview: Interrogation Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) Interrogation is express questioning or its functional equivalent; requires knowledge that conversation may produce incriminating statements Arizona v.Mauro (1987): so long as police do not intend to elicit incriminating statement, chance that conduct will do so is insufficient to constitute interrogation Illinois v. Perkins (1990): questioning by undercover agent is not interrogation for purposes of Miranda Michigan v. Mosley (1975): right to remain silent permits police to re-initiate contact after reasonable time has passed Edwards v. Arizona (1981): right to counsel precludes police from not re-initiating interrogation absent counsel; only defendant can do that Rhode Island v. Innis(1980) (Stewart, J.) Arrest suspect to murder, read Miranda rights, suspect invokes right to att, cops stop questioning, put him in cop car to go to station, and in the car cops start talking about too bad cant find gun b/c this area is full of handicap kids. D can def hear them. D says Ill show you where gun is. We know that questioning = interrogation but what if dont ask questions? What We Know D is def in custody not free to leave b/c arrested in cop car on way to station, incommunicado with three cops in the car. He invoked right to att thus ONLY way his confession is valid is if HE volunteered that info on own and it was NOT in response to continued interrogation. Thus, the issue is the confession here in response to an interrogation? What counts as interrogation? Expressed questions OR functional equivalent of expressed questions Functional equivalent it was re foreseeable that suspect would respond to the cops dialogue Looks like causal analysis the dialogue was a but for causation of the confession BUT was it the proximate cause (re foreseeable to cops that would cause confession?) If not re foreseeable = functional equivalent = response to interrogation that should have stopped so miranda vio. If NOT re foreseeable then not functional equivalent Hold ( There was no reason for re cop to believe that D was susceptible to this type of talk (no indication that he cared about disabled kids etc) Thus, it was not re foreseeable = NOT functional equivalent = NOT an interrogation so Ds confession was volunteered = NO MIRANDA VIO. Ct looked at whether anything objectively manifested by D which would suggest to cops that D was susceptible to that type of topic but not case here If D showed reason why cops would know he was susceptible (like told them I have handicap kid) then likely functional equivalent here. Dissent the dialogue was deeply suggestive and cops are sophisticated, they knew what they were doing. Cops were just testing what D was susceptible to. Interesting to think: if D did not react, would cops have stopped talking or switch convo to search for another trigger? Also, this looks like psychological ploy and Miranda is against this BUT Innis undermines Mirandas prohibition of deceptive police tactics Thus ct says interrog is: Anything that is re likely to elicit an incriminating response (questions or functional equivalents) but then it narrows the view of functional equivalents so as to allow ploys. Ploys questions that dont look like questions Effectively this ct states that ploys are EXEMPT from Miranda This gives tools to sophisticated cops Some think this is good policing bc psychologically soph cops engaging in fishing ploys is better than gun to head and confessions are good People of this view think Miranda goes too far in prohibiting ANY psychological techniques Others think that this goes against Mirandas intention of making sure Ds can make knowledgeable choices Illinois v. Perkins(1990) (Kennedy, J.) D is in custody (not charged yet so no 6th issue) for murder and so cops stick an undercover cop dressed as prisoner and an informant in Ds jail cell. D does not know one is a cop. Cop asked if D ever killed anyone and got D to discuss the murder htat he was suspected of. There was no Miranda rights given. Rule: Interrogation = coercion + questioning/functional equivalent Hold ( This is NOT an interrogation Held that D had a choice as to whether to answer or not and he did not feel coerced to answer b/c he didnt know that the guy was a cop. States that Miranda is meant to limit coercion, not deception or trickery Thus, this case encourages deceptive police tactics over straightforward questioning. Diff to other cases This case is DIFF than Massiah b/c D not charged here. Had he been charged then this questioning after w/o counsel would vio 6th amm. This case is DIFF than Escobedo b/c there D knew he was being questioned by police but here D thinks just talking to jail buddies. Would this be considered custodial? Well he is in prison so NOT free to leave = looks custodial in that sense BUT he thinks he is chatting to a jail buddy so the question is not oppressive So likely NOT custodial b/c dont feel dominated by the other, D thinks the questioner is an equal. Perkins encourages deceptive police tactics in place of more straightforward questioning. Questioning by undercover agent is not interrogation for purposes of Miranda because under Perkins the purpos of Miranda is to limit coercion, not regulate deception. Key is not what the police intend to do, but what the encounter looks like from the perspective of the suspect Warnings: Invocation Court requires express invocation of the right to silence if the suspect is to cut off questioning. Duckworth v. Eagan: Verbatim warning not necessary Cop informed D that could be appointed att if and when D went to ct. The lang was added and not part of script. D claims that the addition made the Miranda warning confusing so it was invalid Hold ( Ct held that this warning was sufficient As long as cops communicate substance of Miranda Rights then that is sufficient. No need for the warning to be verbatim. And the additional words accurately state the time frame of the process Florida v. Powell: Warning sufficient if it covers defendants right when given a commonsense reading Cops just informed D that have right to talk with att and D argued that the warning was invalid b/c it did not explicitly state that had right to attorney during questioning. Hold ( warning is sufficient if it covers Ds rights when given a commonsense reading Ct refuses to require precision as to the lang. Issue even if commonsense reading could make it understandable, do you expect D to invoke rights when they are confused about the rights Likely the case with unsophisticated Ds Ct holds not THAT confusing, re person would get it if read it reasonably. So long as substance is given = all good. Not a high burden. Note: some even go further Miranda rights in general are not going to be understood by most unsoph Ds so what good are they really (especially if Ds are kids) Waiver Waiver requires (1) Knowing and (2) voluntary relinquishment of a right. Lower courts have held that some lies do not invalidate Miranda waiver, but lying to Df about nature of rights would violate Miranda Bradshaws two-step inquiry: (1) Did the suspect initiate further conversation (2) did the suspect waive her rights to silence & to an attorney? Questioning can continue before express/active invocation cuts-off questioning A suspect can waive her rights at different points during the custodial interrogation. Need to know (1) what rights were waived and (2) when they were waived. Can occur before warnings and both before and after suspect invokes her rights Consequences of wavier depend upon which right the suspect waives Case Overview Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010): waiver need not be express, but may be implied from circumstances indicating suspect understood warnings and then responded to questions. Police may interrogate a suspect who has not invoked or waived Miranda rights. Separates the right to cut-off questioning from the right to remain silent. Michigan v. Mosley (1975): (right to silence). Test for valid waiver is whether the police scrupulously honored defendants right to cut off questioning; immediately stop interrogation; usually also passage of significant period of time and fresh set of warnings Edwards v. Arizona (1981): right to counsel. No further interrogation by police until counsel made available to her unless the accused herself initiates further communication Minnick v. Mississippi (1990): officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney in the interim Maryland v. Shatzer (2010): police may reinitiate questioning 14 days after release from custody Consequence of right waived Right to remain silent: Mich. V. Mosley( police may re-initiate contact after reasonable tiem has passed Right to counsel: Edwards v. Arizona( police may not re-initiate, only Df. can. Tentative or ambigious invocations of right to counsel count for nothing Case overview: Waiver of Counsel North Carolina v. Butler (1979): Absent express waiver of right to counsel, Court applies totality of the circumstances test to determine whether suspect waived 5th Amendment rights Moran v. Burbine (1986): acts that occur outside presence of suspect cannot affect the decision to waive counsel Colorado v. Connelly (1986): waiver is voluntary though produced by moral and psychological pressures emanating from sources other than official coercion. Colorado v. Spring (1987):waiver valid even though the defendant was not apprised of every alleged crime with respect to which the police intended to interrogate him. Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010): totality of circumstances sufficient to demonstrate understood Miranda right to silence; uncoerced decision to waive was therefore valid Invoke/Waiver Analysis (as in what is the consequence) Depends on: WHEN rights were waived: Can be waived BEFORE the rights were read AND can occur BEFORE or AFTER D invokes rightss  If waive BEFORE warnings then depends on WHERE D is when makes incriminating statement: If brief detention in field (like terry stop) then not enough to be custody = admissible If statement in back of cop car on way to station (Innis) then likely custody = not admissible. If in this situation and D just blurts it out = cant show that right was waived b/c was not read rights yet = cant prove knowingly waived. Then if AFTER warnings Well if still before invoke right then what must cops show to prove waived rights? Well if after invoke rights who can reinitiate?? WHAT rights were invoked/waived Two rights at stake in Miranda Right to remain silent (5th amm) and right to counsel (5th amm). Right to remain silent Who can Reinitiate after invoke this right? Cops OR D (Mosley) Why? Robust D - D saying robust enough to hang with cops but choosing not to Right to counsel Who can Reinitiate after invoke this right? ONLY the D (not cops) Why? Vulnerable D saying not robust enough to hang, I need help IF D reinitiates now going from vulnerable D to a robust D so let them have that autonomy. Still preserve Ds right b/c want to give autonomy. D cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to counsel UNLESS D volunteers to reinitiate (especially since havnt spoken to att) (Edwards) So on reinitiating based on invoking EITHER right, D can reinitiate b/c vol waiver is ALWAYS permissible Must Invoke This Rights Clearly and Actively [Must be express, never implied] Right to Counsel Davis Ct held that if invocation of right to counsel is tentative or ambiguous then that DOES NOT COUNT. Cops do NOT have to clarify, they can just keep asking questions. Ex) hang on a sec, I want someone to help me Halfhearted indications are not indications at all. All or nothing testthe police need not ask for clarification or dispel uncertainty. For many suspects, ambigious invocations are the most one can expect. Clarity matters: if invocations are generally ambigious, then the Court does away with most of the Edwards rules Issue Most suspects are unsoph and so such invocations are generally ambiguous; thus, the Edwards protection (if invoke right to att then they h ave to stop until YOU reinitiate) nullified here. Barrett D agreed to talk but refused to make a wr statement without a att present. Ct held ( this was not a sufficient invocation of att. Must ask specifically for an attorney Fare D asked for his probation officer and ct held that that is not a invocation of right to att b/c PO = not att. Right to Remain Silence Remaining silent is NOT enough to this invoke right. D must speak and expressly invoke it. If just remain silent, no rights have been invoked, cops can keep questioning. Berghuis v. Thompkins(2010) (Kennedy, J.) [See more below] D questioned and didnt say much for 2 hr and 45 min (just nods and yes/no), but then in last 15 min cop asked if believed in God and prayed for victim D said yes. D argued that invoked silence b/c silent for most of almost 3 hr REJECT must actively invoke right to silence Invoking Right to Silence Reinitiating Michigan v. Mosley(1975) (Stewart, J.) D arrested for robberies, gets miranda warnings, briefly interrogated but THEN D invoked right to remain silent so interrog stopped. Two hours later, diff cop took him to diff location and read Miranda again, obtained waiver, and asked about unrelated homicide and D said incrim info. If right to silence invoked, can reinitiate contact? Cant be if invoke rights the permanent immunity against questioning, cant be that D cannot then choose to vol speak again (autonomy), and cant just continue interrogating thereafter. Hold ( After D invokes right to silence then cops or D can reinitiate contact as long as cops scrupulously honored that right (wait re time). Right to silence is the right to cut off questioning So as long as this right is scrupulously honored by cops then evid admissible. If do NOT scrup honor then evid is inadmissible. How to scrupulously honor? Cop must at the very least STOP interrogating indiv for a re period of time. So ct here seemed to apply totality of the cir (looked at all 4 components) here: diff cop, diff location, diff subject, AND re time of wait (2 hours here) BUT later cases (Seibert) show that really the necessity to show Scrup Honor is to show re time in-between and THIS ct said 2 hours is re enough Can maybe include the other stuff and could help weight but not as necessary. There is no mandatory minimum just ct said here that 2 hours was re here Note: even shorter time in Seibert So when in doubt argue totality of cir like ct. Note: cops are not req to restate warnings when reinitiate, but smart to do so. Invoking Right to Counsel Reinitiating Edwards v. Arizona(1981) (White, J.) D arrested and want to interrogate him so gave Miranda warnings, D invoked right to att so cops stop questioning. Next day he was told wanted to be questioned again, D refused, but was told he had to. Cops read Miranda again and showed him tapes of others implicating him in crime, he confessed. So here reinitiated next morning = DEF re time period so scrup honor BUT timing is not the issue here. The issue is WHO reinitiated here the COPS reinitiated Rule: ONLY D can reinitiate after invoking right to counsel Hold Statement is NOT admissible. If D invokes right to att then can cops NEVER reinitiate? ( No! They can ( Schatzer If it has been 2 weeks (14 days) from the time of releasing the D from the custodial environment and into normal life (general population) THEN cops may reinitiate Presume its enough time for D to shake off coercion from prior custody. Puts a time limit on Edwards prohibition on cops inability to reinitiate as to this right. What Does reinitiate mean? Bradshaw D invokes right to att, cops stop convo, later D transferred to diff station and asked cop what will happen to me now? Cop said dont have to talk to me b/c requested att. D said understood and they had convo of where going and then cop suggested he take a polygraph exam. D agreed. Issue: Ct looked at: (1) did D initiate further convo and What does initiate further convo means? Was the question by D sufficient to reinitiate so it was ok for cop to suggest the polygraph exam (really the prob, not the info on where going)? Remember state cant reinitiate for this right. Hold ( YES, D reinitiated via the question, not the cops (2) did D waive her rights to silence and to an att? By talking D waived right to silence and att (implied) Controversial case Big Pic So makes it hard for D to actually invoke and then makes it easy to re-initiate, which makes it easy to get waiver. Waivers Formal nature of warnings( suspect need ony understand the literal truth of the warnings (that can remain silen and can request lawyer) not the practical consequences (police need not supply additional information to help him calibrate self-interest D can only invoke expressly BUT waivers can be either express OR implied! If make the incriminating statement = implied waiver of BOTH rights Dont have to say you waive, you just start speaking BUT speaking must be more than just nods and yes/no (Thompkins) Failure to clearly and expressly invoke is NOT waiver. BUT it does not make cops stop questioning they may continue (cops get benefit of unclear or non-express invocation) Thus, cops may interrogate a silent suspect continuously until either get an express and clear invocation (stop questioning) OR an express or implied waiver (statements thereafter are valid). Cops do NOT need a waiver at the outset in order to question. And cop tactic keep talking and keep D silent so that D relaxes = minimizes risk of invoking right. Waivers req knowing and intelligently AND voluntary relinquishment of a right. Two approaches to voluntariness Wise/informed choice model: Miranda requires the state to permit suspect to access as much information as possible to calibrate choices. Virtually all police station confesions should be barred Absence of physical threat model: Miranda permits only strategies to forcefully coerce the choice to confess or lying to individuals about the nature of their rights. The law should regulate police coercion without concerning itself with defendants ignorance, mistake, or bad judgement. Police trickery, even in bad faith, is permissible to induce confessions. Moran v. Burbine(1986) (OConnor, J.) D arrested for burglary, but got tip that also guilty for murder. Sis hires att who calls station to say not to question D without her. Cop says that they are not questioning D tonight, but they do. D never knows att trying to help. D was given warnings, never asked for an att, signed waivers, and confessed. How much info must cops give D in order for him to knowingly waive his rights? Hold ( D (always suspect) need only understand the warnings literally. Thus, cops only need to give D warnings and that is it. Thus, cops did not have to hell D that att wanted to help or even if att standing outside of the door in order to get a knowing waiver. Ct held that this may be an ethical vio, but permissible. Ct held that the warnings focus the cts attention to the cops conduct INSIDE the interrogation room; what is occurring outside plays no role Only worried about stuff goin on in the room that could affect Ds decision. But if all stuff in there good and D understands rights, not coerced, and vol waives then all good. Dont worry about outside stuff b/c doesnt affect Ds decision. Thus Miranda focuses on 2 worries: (1) Worry of getting info out to make sure that what is going on in the interrogation room is permissible do that by asking D and cops: was Miranda warning given, etc. (2) Worry that suspect is vulnerable so att should be there to help BUT you dont get this help unless you ask for it ct saw this view as respecting autonomy Dissent Miranda is worried about incommunicado coercion so the entire interrogation is at issue (not just what is going on inside room) thus lying to att and not telling D about it is a CONSTI wrong, not just an ethical vio. OConnor acknowledges: additional information might have affected [Burbines] decision to confess But we have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights Burden is on defendant to assert rights: So long as informed of rights, then subsequent decisions uncoerced & therefore voluntary Berghuis v. Thompkins(2010) (Kennedy, J.) D questioned about murder. Given Miranda on piece of paper (he read some aloud to make sure English/read). D refused to sign it to show that he understood. Didnt say much for 2 hr and 45 min (just nods and yes/no), but then in last 15 min cop asked if believed in God and prayed for his victim D said yes. Hold ( NO suppression of evid b/c: No express/clear invocation (must actively invoke right to silence) so okay that cops started and kept questioning Waiver is valid b/c it was an implied waiver to silence and att here b/c D chose to speak D argued that there was coercion b/c silent for 2 hr 45 min and only gave in at last 15 min BUT ct refused to factor in time of the incommunicado interrogation Ct thinks this rule helps promote Ds autonomy to calibrate own interests. Note: Usually when testimony is okay under Miranda (5th) then likely okay under 6th amm as well (Escobedo/Messiah) b/c 5th amm is a mess. Consequences of Miranda Violations Ct in Miranda saw these warnings as consti required (via 5th amm) just like Warren Ct through exclusionary rule was constitutionally req (via 4th amm) If view it as consti req then Miranda applies uniformly and without any exception. AND fruits analysis applies. BUT just like with the exclusionary rule, if make it to where NOT consti req (so a vio of Miranda would NOT equal a consti vio) then: Chips away at the consequences b/c just views the warnings as prophylactic rules made by the ct (see that in Elstad and Quarles) Affects whether the Fruits Analysis applies to Miranda vio (Estad) If Miranda warnings are NOT consti req then even if there is a Miranda vio then the fruits of that vio will NOT be excluded (unlike if it is a fruit of 5th amm vio = where fruits would be excluded). Allows the leg to make modifications to Miranda via statute (like statute in Dickerson) Up until Dickerson, J. Rehenquist showed his DISLIKE for Miranda in past cases like Quarles, Tucker, Elstad) so many thought that Dickerson would overrule Miranda. BUT he back tracked. Case Overview: The Scope of Miranda New York v. Quarles (1984): public safety exception to Miranda warnings requirement when the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination. Oregon v. Elstad (1985): Miranda prophylactic exclusionary rule is broader than Fifth Amendment, establishing irrebuttable presumption that custodial interrogation entails any statement is compelled Dickerson v. United States (2000): the Miranda rule is constitutional, rather than a mere exercise of the Courts supervisory authority to regulate evidence Case Overview: The Fruits of Miranda Oregon v. Elstad (1985): rejects fruits doctrine; permits use of a subsequently obtained statement in compliance with Miranda so long as prior, unwarned statement was voluntary Missouri v. Seibert (2004): rejects two-step process of obtaining unwarned confession, then subsequent warned confession, because subsequent Miranda warnings could not function effectively United States v. Patane (2004): physical evidence obtained as a consequence of unwarned confession is admissible; exclusion of the confession is sufficient remedy; no need to apply the fruits doctrine to the mere failure to warn because there is nothing to deter Cases Leading Up to Dickerson and Seibert Quarles Woman claims raped at market, Cops go and find suspect with his holster empty. No Miranda given. Cops ask where gun is and guy tells them. Creates an Exception for failure to give Miranda warnings. Were 5th amm rights vio b/c cops failed to mirandize before question? Was there justification to fail to comply with Miranda? Ct creates bifurcation (draws line) between Procedural safeguards (Miranda) and Core Rights Procedural Safeguards these are not THEMSELVES consti rights, but just measure to ensure core rights of 5th amm (consti rights) protected. These are just what ct req, not what consti req. Classic warnings (silence, att, etc) Presumption that custodial interrog is automatically coercive (compulsion) Core Rights of 5th amm Consti right Right against compelled testimonial self-incrimination Hold ( Gun and the statement should be admitted b/c: 5th amm and Miranda warning = two diff deals. So failing to mirandize does NOT = 5th amm vio (consti vio). AND there is justification for not mirandizing b/c ct created a public safety exception to Miranda Cops may balance public safety v. value of warnings Here, gun lying around so safety outwights [See more about the bifurcation below under Elstad] Concur (OConnor) Should still suppress the statement (testimony) b/c of the miranda warning vio BUT not non-testimonial, physical evid that was FRUIT of this vio (the gun). Suggesting that Fruits analysis does not apply to Miranda vio (unlike 4th amm Wong Sun). Two harms: (1) a testimonial Miranda harm (unwarned custodial interrogations) (2) A causation-baed 5th amend. harm (fruits). Note: Could have solved by just saying, questioned in the market; thus, not in custody so more like terry stop = no vio. But ct did not address this. Quarles Court explored one consequence of judge-created prophylactic warnings. If the warnings are not constitutionally required, then they can be replaced or modified. Rehnquist holds that may balance public safety with value of warnings. the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination. Tucker cops give some of the warnings but not all. D confessed. Hold ( Ds confession was voluntary; thus, not being read all warnings does NOT affect Ds privilege against core rights being vio [Changes in Dickerson] Elstad Cop chats to D in living room and ends up getting incrim testimony from D there w/o Miranda (negligent interrogation and negligent failure to warn). Then take back to station, give him Miranda, and reinterrogate. D confesses again. D argues that cat was out of the bag with first invalid testimony so cant just cure it via subsequent Miranda and questioning. Ct REJECTs D argument and held that fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine does NOT apply to Miranda violations. Ct stated that Miranda is a non-constitutional, overbroad prophylactic rule Miranda covers MORE than just the 5th amm (consti right) b/c 5th amm compulsion is narrower than Mirandas notion of custody Compulsion is NOT present just because there are no warnings. Ex) Repeat offenders could not feel compelled even if they are in custody thus maybe Miranda vio BUT that does not auto mean it is a 5th amm vio (the consti right)( 2 diff things (bifurcation). Miranda SERVES 5th amm but covers more stuff. So Miranda ITSELF is not consti req. And just b/c Miranda vio does not mean 5th amm/consti vio. And non-constitionality precludes suppression of the fruits of consti vio. Okay to exclude the testimony under Miranda vio but NOT the fruits from such testimony. Exclude fruits only if there is a consti vio (5th amm or 4th amm (Wong-Sun)) Rule ( Even if there is testimony via miranda vio then subsequent evid is admissible as long as voluntary or curative warnings thereafter. Hold ( The first testimony is not admissible b/c Miranda vio BUT the second testimony is admissible b/c the Miranda warning there cured first issue and fruit analysis does not come into play Current Cases That Changed Up Former Cases Dickerson v. United States(2000) (Rhenquist, C.J.) Congress had a statute that tried to restore the prior voluntariness rule rather than Mirandas presumption that any custodial interrog was coercive. Hold ( Congress CANNOT overrule Miranda warnings b/c they are constitutional. Thus, any vio of Miranda is a consti vio. Why did Rehenquist change mind? Consti requires restrictions on interrogation and to make restrictions meaningful then we should continue with Miranda being consti req While Miranda is not the ONLY way to do it, it is the best way that we have come up with so far (Congresss stat here was insufficient). Also, Miranda has turned into a powerful tool for the soph cop. So want to keep it. Miranda places power to determine voluntariness in hands of the cops Simple bright line rule that is easy for cops. Hard to validly invoke, strategies to get waiver (express or implied) Without Miranda, the cts must decide case by case if statement vol Ct still okayed the exceptions and limitations put on Miranda before this case though So public safety exception (Quarles) and fruits limitation (Elstad subject to changes in Seibert/Patane below) still in play! DISSENT (Scalia): There are not three options, only two, either (1) Miranda is constitutional, so there is no gap between 5th Amend. and custodial interrogation or (2) Miranda is unconstitutional, and so must be replaced with 18 U.S.C. 3501 Missouri v. Seibert(2004) (Souter, J.) Cops had policy to 1st ask questions w/o Miranda, get them to confess, then give 20 min break w/ coffee, then mirandize, reinitiate questions to repeat confession. D here had son w/ cerebral palsy that died and tried to stage fire to cover up that he had bedsores, but another kid also left in there and cops suspected that D knew he would be left in there. Cops used their policy tactic here. (Missouri Two-Step) You can tell D did not want to repeat confession second time around but cops reminded her of the first confession (part of the tactic). Under formalistic view of Elstad cops conduct seems okay BUT ct here found some differences with this case and Elstad Less degree of custody there (iving room) than here (interrogation room) The cops there acted negligently and not intentionally. It is deliberate here. Cops in Elstad made a GF mistake in not knowing if counted as interrogation and not knowing needed to give Miranda warning. Went back to station to question and here continuous questioning in the interrogation room B/c of these differences, Elstad ct was not too concerned about the link between the prior statement and the warned statement. Diff here. Ct held that this tactic attacks the effect of Miranda (its a round-about of Miranda) This formalistic approach allows multiple unwarned interrogations that ultimately lead to an admissible statement Thus, ct limited the use of these type of run arounds The Test Follow Kennedys test stated in Concurrence b/c it is the narrowest Applies a BF std ( if this type of 2 step process tactic occurs deliberately to get around Miranda then CANNOT use subsequent evid unless curative measures taken to dispel the BF stuff BEFORE postwarning statement given. Note: no real good way to dispel Hold ( Here, the tactic was deliberate to get around Miranda so second testimony not admissible UNLESS can prove curative measures to dispel. Concur (Kennedy)-->thinks harm is deliberate end runs around Miranda (subjective approach). Constitution requires "curative measures" be taken "before the post warning statement is made" Concur (Breyer): Just apply a fruits analysis to Miranda. Dissent This type of tactic is objectively permissible b/c est in Elstad that subsequent confessions cured by warning is OK. We are not supposed to look at what cop intended. Ct held NOT obj permissible b/c of its effect on Miranda. United States v. Patane(2004) (Thomas, J.)  D vio restraining order and cops also get tip that he has a gun. Cops go arrest him for the violation and start reading him Miranda, but he interrupts and sys I know. Cops then ask where gun is and he tells them. Cops find gun. D indicted for gun. D argues to suppress gun b/c it is a fruit of Miranda vio. Is this a fruit of a 5th amm vio? NO b/c the statement (where gun was) was not given to trial, just the gun (the physical evid) and 5th amm is only as to compulsion of self-incriminating testimony. If gun was a fruit of 5th amm vio then yes exclude under fruit analysis. But no 5th amm vio here. So we are in Miranda vio side of the bifurcation The remedy for Miranda vio is exclude testimony, but NOT the fruits. Plurality Hold ( Gun admissible b/c non-testimonial (physical) fruits are admissible under. Miranda Easier case than dealing with testimonial fruits (Elstad/Seibert). 6th Amendment Sixth Amendment right to counsel operates after formal charges are brought. Primarily concerns the adversarial nature of proceedings No need to invoke the right, know about the right, or feel coerced Person is charged if they are: indicted by grand jury, have a criminal complaint filed against them, or when file paperwork charging D after prelim hearing. Indict via grand jury is a waivable right only in fed cases (if waive then allow complaint to = charge). Misdemeanors and/or state cts (depends on st) then charge through prelim hearing mini trial w/o jury. Grounds for 6th Amend. Right to Counsel Ensures access to advice of counsel in criminal trials (adversary proceeding) 5th amm also has right to counsel but more for inquisitorial sys of adjudication and only applicable if D wants to invoke that feel vulnerable and wants help Assists in our adoption of the Adversarial Proceeding. Inquisitorial sys: vertical scrutiny where only judge regulates both parties and is the only check on the parties. France follows this sys were prosecutor informs judge of both side of case Ex) grand jury where there is no right to counsel is this process. Reject just this! Adversary Sys: horizontal scrutiny as well as vertical in addition to judge supervision, the parties also regulate each other. Ds counsel serves as check on prosecutorial conduct independent of judge and jury essential to role of D counsel as an adversary Thus, horizontal and vertical scrutiny. The Diff Rights 5th amm: right to silence and right to counsel Must invoke rights Can waive rights Easy to prove knowingly b/c just point to warnings Cops can engage in subtle acts of trickery to get you to waive Miranda operates at the investigative stage BEFORE charging in order to primarily protect D from self-incrimination 6th amm: right to counsel Do not have to invoke Can waive rights same as 5th (knowingly and intelligently and vol relinquish) Harder b/c cant just point to warnings to show knowingly Cops CANNOT engage in subtle acts of trickery to get you to waive Counsel has as much of a right to client at this stage as the client has with the counsel. 6th amm protects against trickery, mistake, or misjudgment. 6th amm operates after formal charges and its primary concern is for the adversarial nature of proceedings Gives more protection to 6th amm rights than 5th amm rights. After charged, D can still argue ALL of these rights (including 5th) Hypo to help differentiate D in jail, not charged yet. Undercover cop there that asks him about crime and D admits. (Perkns situation). No 5th amm vio occurred b/c failure to mirandize since no custodial interrogation here b/c no coercion/dominance presence b/c D did not know he was a cop. Same D taken to interrog room, no Miranda rights, cop asks about the crime and D confesses. Yes, 5th amm vio due to failure to give warnings b/c there is coercion/dominance so there is a express custodial interrogation. But, if he gives Miranda then cops can ask questions UNTIL invoke rights. Before taken to interrog room, D charged (Massiah) Nothing that D says to undercover cop will be admissible b/c 6th automatically attaches for right to counsel and so vio 6th amm. D doesnt have to invoke, know about 6th amm, or know talking to a cop. So same deal if undercover cop in jail AFTER charge = 6th amm vio. Right to Counsel--Generally Brewer v. Williams(1977) (Stewart, J.) 10 year old abducted and D (mental history) is the suspect. He talks to att that convinces him to surrender to cop station 1 where he ran off to. He does and is charged there. Att sets up arrangement to transfer him to station 2 where crime occurred BUT told cops that could NOT question him w/o att. D got another att whre station 2 was who reiterated same instructions to cop. D was mirandized. In car, D states will talk when get to att. Cop knows D mental and religious gives him Christian burial speech. D then told him where body was. Found body Hold ( testimony in car should be suppressed b/c vio of 6th amm (Massiah) He was charged No valid waiver b/c did not vol relinquish right Whole time D agreed ONLY to talk with an att present. Compare this with Innis There cop did not re know D susceptible to talk of disabled kids = no interrog So if we looked at 5th amm here (ct did not), then would be diff than Innis b/c here the cop DID know D was susceptible to talk of religion = would be an interrog Note: later case brought down D by way of independent discovery doctrine allowed submission of the body as evid. Cases up to Gideon and the Extension of Rights to States Powell (30s) black youths falsely accused of raping white woman and ct said ok we will appoint you counsel BUT only get it the morning of trial. When asked for att, no one stepped up. Ct said too bad. Ct held that right of counsel is necessary for a fair trial (DP) Thus, held ( in capital cases ONLY, D must have counsel and time to prepare case. Betts ct refused to incorporate 6th amm to the states BUT it expanded the right to counsel to non-capital cases IF there are special cir Special Cir ( D has some disability so he is not competent to present case OR the case is really complex so D is not competent to present case So if straight forward case and D has no disability then special cir does not apply Who knows if there are special cir involved? D might know but prosecutor def knows b/c they know how complicated case is. Ct will not know if special cir exist Issue: There is a perverse incentive for prosecutor NOT to reveal (or even investigate) existence of special cir (they want to win the case). Well those cases are federal, what about states? ( Gideon v. Wainwright(1963) (Black, J.) D was tried for a felony in Fl state ct and asked for att but state denied him since state statute req ct only appoint for capital offenses D argues that 6th amm right to counsel should be incorporated through 14th amm to apply to st Remember, incorp is as to clauses in amendments, not as to amendments as whole. 14th amm req fair trial so is right to counsel fundamental to ensure a fair trial, thus it should be incorporated to states? Not JUST the right to counsel b/c if you can afford counsel then always have that right to counsel (Powell) The main question here is as to the right to counsel if you are indigent is this right so fundamental that can force state to pay for your att? Hold Overrule Betts so as to incorp 6th amm right to counsel cl to the states b/c it IS fundamental to fair trial b/c: Inequality of resources between state and D Complexity of criminal justice system And equal treatment of rich and poor criminal Ds Interesting b/c economic freedom is the US way. Usually dont go for economic equality. Overrule Betts so that 6th amm provides right to counsel in ALL felony cases (capital or non-capital regardless of special cir)  So if you are wealthy to purchase then have right to counsel in ALL cases and if indigent then have right to counsel for ALL felonious cases. What about misdemeanors ( later case held that so long as face sentence of actual imprisonment then have right to counsel Right to Counsel at Lineups Case Overview: counsel at trial Powell v. Alabama (1932): due process requires appointment of counsel where defendant incapable of making own defense Johnston v. Zerbst (1938): federal Sixth Amendment right to counsel to prevent power imbalance between state (represented by experienced lawyer) and defendant (who lacks legal training) Betts v. Brady (1942): due process requires appointment of counsel only if special circumstances indicate denial of counsel would violate fundamental fairness Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in all felony cases Case Overview: Counsel at Identification United States v. Wade (1967): Sixth Amendment right to counsel and to confront witnesses requires presence of counsel at line-up to identify defendant Stovall v. Denno (1967): due process violation when lineup is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification Kirby v. Illinois (1972): right to counsel at line-ups applies only after initiation of adversary proceedings United States v. Ash (1973): photo identifications do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel Moore v. Illinois (1977): not only indictment, but also filing criminal complaint may initiate prosecution for 6th Amendment purposes Manson v. Braithwaite (1977): photo array evaluated using due process factors to ensure reliability United States v.Wade(1967) (Brennan, J.) - If D is charged then have 6th amm right to counsel at the line up Why? to protect D from suggestibility and this evid is weighty Eye witness identifications are POWERFUL b/c weighs big points with jury) and many times the witnesses misidentify. So D wants att there to argue that line up was unduly suggestive or some other issues as the identification Thus Evid of a pretrial identification obtained in vio of the right to counsel is ALWAYS inadmissible. BUT if right to counsel vio b/c att not present at identification, that does not mean that evid will NEVER get admitted b/c CAN be admitted via: independent basis OR In ct identification following a pretrial identification obtained in vio of right to counsel is admissible only if: (1) Gvt carries burden of showing (2) clear and convincing evid (3) that there is an indep basis for the in-ct identification Ct only tells us this so the process is a bit obscure Harmless Error Harmless error doctrine applies both to testimony about the pretrial identification and to the in-ct identification Ex) violation of Wade identification rules should not lead to the reversal of a conviction if gvt can est beyond a re doubt that the vio was harmless error. Kirbyv. Illinois(1972) (Stewart, J.) Pre-charged lineups are judged by 5th amm DP clause 6th amm does NOT apply, but 5th amm still does With the 5th amm have to see if the identification is reliable, if so then it is admissible. Clashes w/ Wade b/c why is pre-charged lineups any less suggestive or less weighty? United States v.Ash(1973) (Blackmun, J.) 6th amm right to counsel ONLY applies to in person lineups. Thus ( photo identifications do not count (even if D has been charged). Perry Woman calls police to report robbery. Cop goes into apt to question woman and ask what he looks like. Woman points out the window to a man talking to the cop and say THAT is him. D argued that this is too suggestive = vio 6th amm Hold ( uphold the use of evid b/c so long as NO state action, then thre is no 6th amm vio Here the wit independently identifies D, so even if highly suggestive cir, 6th amm cannot be vio BUT 5th amm still applies, so highly suggestive line up are still impermissible under 5th amm Thus, if suggestive, the ct shall determine if eyewitnesss identification is reliable or not. If it is, then identification is admissible. Ct held that womans identification was reliable here.      PAGE   PAGE 1 In cases it talks like, b/c there was no right of privacy then this was NOT considered a search/seizure under the 4th amm = no need for the protections (warrant + PC) b/c no need to make it reasonable Also, is Katz JUST to do with searches I am getting held up on that Or is right to privacy tell you if can s/s regardless of if re or not. But in class didnt state it like that. Just said that if no right of privacy then that search was reasonable and not intrusive so no need for warrant + PC To see if search or seizure so that fall in 4th amm then have to apply BOTH privacy and prop. But doesnt matter which one you start with. We talked about this as a deal with PRONG 1! .? How to deal with? Should I put this under prong 1 analysis and then make a point under prong 2 to say that this makes the state action not intrusive Prong 2 how intrusive search is (obj) Then apply 3 diff things if it applies (apply the applicable ones) Prong 1 greenwood would see subj b/c opague bag. But then prong 2 re expectation. Re is: ask whether it has been abandoned (so would not be obj) OR assumption of risk (no society expec obj privacy in prop that made available to public re rodent test) OR re hobo test If in see through bag = cops could look in b/c in open field (so would just apply that one under prong 1) Update. So (b) (shots were fired, which exigency does this pertain to? Safety of publicso is that a community caretaking deal so just need re suspicion? ( worried about other dangerous people/find other injured people so is this protectice sweep (re suspicion) or community caretaking or something else/? Are police protecting public from danger? If so then community caretaking. Diff if seeking gun for investigation or seeking it for public safety. Ask what the goal is When do we do the balancing testto decide that invasion is minimal and thus we should apply the lesser std (re susp) and count it as a Terry style stop rather than PC (which should apply when more invasive)? Or do we need to will it just be obvious that it is a terry stop If close call then do the balance test. Not for classic terry stop Do it for stops that fall more in the middle Just talked about how pretexual policing doesnt matter so long as PC or re suspicion to stop you then they can. I dont get the point of this case what does it add here.confused. Read Miller's article in HLR about this doctrine Check. Alsoare we just worried about passenger compartmentand not just in the car (I think so b/c other stuff would just be plain view)but what about like inbetween seat etc? Anything in front part of vehicle is passenger compartment not just the glove department Confused about how this fits in the test. So figure out if PC for the manner and then balance itI thought if had PC then the end manner was justified so no need to balance. Said that deadly force [the manner] is justified so is this test ONLY If deadly force is used right? this also goes into question below about whether it is PC or re for the manner diff std said in Scott Scott = last case and it is a change from Garner so now the test is RE! yes only deadly but what counts as deadly force is also an issue. Scott did balance what is re given this balance? answer is always cops get to do crazy stuff. Usually one side is safety of public and cop =almost always winning side to find action re. Part of the test in Scott: who brought about the dangerous stuff? ( D was the one that made the cops use such force seems like the balance -s o cops almost always ok in using deadly force Graham (non deadly force) still excessive force case. It uses re std and not PC. Which is why scott uses re suspicion. order was historically garner, graham, scott. So Grahm changed std and Scott kept it. So..where is the balance in the test? Is it THE test? Check So indep and ineveitable discover leads to undermine but for cause. However, other sub intervening cause (like voluntary confession Wong sun) undermines proximate cause? Based on other girls question ----------------------------------------------- PC ( governed by Gates (totality of cir). Spinelli (reliability and X) comes up with tipper but not REALLY so much anymore b/c Gates swallows it. Fair probability given cir that re person OR re cop with traning/experience (Ornelas) that that person believed that crime committed the std (Gates) So start with Gates and work in Ornelas if need to THEN need warrant state place and things looking for Exception for warrant? Comm caretaking the diff is the GOAL. Cts went for this wishy washy test b/c as stated in Hudson we dont think cops are incompetent so dont use multifactor tests that is what we give an incompetent person. Believe if dont do stuff on all factors then they will feel ashamed themselves and will self regulate (in trouble by supervisor) so no need for ct to say shame and exclude the evid. I think he said this came from Burrows casebut cant find it. Check. So indictment and charge = same deal basically? So when asking if it is an interrogation: is this the test? b/c seems like in Perkins it was direct qeustioniong directed to elicit a response but answer was just that it wasnt b/c didnt feel coerced since didnt know undercover cop so is part of the test also that re person would feel pressured to answer the question? So is rule: coercion + questioning/functional equivalent? YES, need BOTH. cant be interrogated by your friend Its custodial interrogation that matters. But look at them separately So then this would NOT be custodial? So then is the real test: Incomunicado + re person dont think free to leave + lengthy detention + AND oppressive/dominative questioning? YES but it is a totality of cir test --> like factors Separating Miranda and 5th chipping away at Miranda in jail with cop 5th amm rights still BUT not custody so Miranda is not triggered so dont have to give you warnings and ok if you confess but then move you to room with cop 5th amm there AND now Miranda triggered b/c custody so now entitled to get the Miranda warnings Siebert ( they waited 20 min and said it was sufficient (changed 2 hour re time rule) Question is voluntariness Slide said: custodial statements to cops BEFORE suspect has waived their rights are inadmissible. I thought that if there was no express, clear invocation of right and then suspect gave incrim statement then that itself is a implied waiver thus it is okay. So is this b/c still respect the bifurcation? Even though decided that mirnada is own consti right? Also, does this mean we have to ask each time is it a 5th amm vio or is it a Miranda vio? Cant just say 5th amm vio b/c Miranda is violated? Ex) Look at notes about ex in class 24 about the diff hypos  So now: Miranda vio are consti vio (Dickerson) so if there is Miranda vio then the testimony received is excluded BUT do not have to give them if public safety exception (Quarles) And fruit analysis still does not apply to Miranda vio. But some diff on nature of subsequent evid: If it is testimonial then Elstad still in play as long as not deliberate/BF use to get around Miranda (Seibert) If it is physical then auto still admissible (Patane) Still express and implied? Check What about 5th amm, still need to be not suggestive? !+,[z { ʶ{n_n_n_nPF7h6h65B*aJphh6B*aJphh6h)5B*aJphh*>2hm>*B*aJphh*>2hmB*aJph!hThmB*CJ OJQJph/T*hThm5>*B*CJ H*OJQJph/T'hThm5>*B*CJ OJQJph/T'hTh*>25>*B*CJ OJQJph/Th*>2h#5>*OJQJ.jhThT5>*OJQJUmHnHuh*>2hm5>*CJ OJQJ,{    , _ & <  & Fgdwi & FgdJ & FgdLm & FgdLm & FgdLm & FgdLm & Fgd6 & Fgd6 & Fgdz$a$gd#   & ( ~     + , ^ _  % & ; < W X Y v w ŸŞ}nnhJhwi5B*aJphh4B*aJphhwiB*aJphhJhJB*aJphhJB*aJphhLmhLm6B*]aJphhLmhLmB*aJphhLmB*aJphhLmh6B*aJphhCJOJQJaJhB*aJphh6h6B*aJph+< Y w  B K _  & F $9DIf^gdTl $If[$\$gdTl 8^8gdwi & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdwi & Fgdwi   A B J K ^ _ +,-..2?. ·hh6CJPJ]aJhhCJPJaJhhB*aJph hThhThCJaJhThCJOJQJaJhJB*aJphhhB*aJphhh"MB*aJphhwiB*aJph1,-. atoeee]U & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F9DgdgdnkdV$$Ifl$$ t0644 lap ytT & F 8$9DIf^8gdTl .`awx#,134JKlt#WX*+,ijop]^cɾɾɾɾھɾɾɾھɾɓھړ jh*>2hzCJaJ hThz5B*CJaJphDrh*>2hzCJH*aJh*>2hz56CJaJh*>2hzCJaJ hThz5B*CJaJphS5h*>2hz5CJaJhThzB*phhThz5>*B*ph}14ax4KX,j^ & F 9Dgd`&  & F9Dgd`& & F9Dgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&cdGHȳ~skkZLZZZZZZLh<CJOJPJQJaJ hRh<CJOJPJQJaJh<CJaJh<h<CJaJh<h<B*CJaJph hfhfCJOJPJQJaJ)hfhf5>*CJOJPJQJ\aJ)hfhfB*CJOJPJQJaJphhThf5>*B*ph}1 hThz5B*CJaJphDrh*>2hzCJaJ jh*>2hzCJaJH~ }Db1S _!!! & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`&H}~ |}CDab01R S ʻ~~~~~ hfhfCJOJPJQJaJ#h<hm|CJOJPJQJ]aJh<hm|6CJaJh<hm|6CJPJaJh<6CJOJPJQJaJ&h<h<6>*CJOJPJQJaJ h<h<CJOJPJQJaJ h<hm|CJOJPJQJaJ,S ^!_!!!!!!!"""L"M""""""""""V#W####$ $ $&$($I$c$d$$$$$%&&n&o&̻ۡww)hJhm|B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)hJhfB*CJOJPJQJaJph22hJhf6>*B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph2 hTh*>2B*CJH*aJphhTh*>2B*CJaJph hfhfCJOJPJQJaJ&hfhf6CJOJPJQJ]aJ.!""M""""W##d$$&o&&'n'n)z))** + & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&o&&&& ''Q'R'm'n'}''(()m)n)y)z))))))***** + +%+սn`UUUUUUhTh*>2B*phhfCJOJPJQJaJ&hfhf6CJOJPJQJ]aJ hfhfCJOJPJQJaJ)hfhf5>*CJOJPJQJ\aJ)hJhfB*CJOJPJQJaJph2/hJhf6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph2)hJh<B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)hJhm|B*CJOJPJQJaJph2%+)+B+C+s+t+++,,:,?,F,G,,,,,--- .!..////0090:0ʹhSSSS)h>h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph22h>h>56B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph2hfCJOJPJQJaJ&hfhf6CJOJPJQJ]aJ)hfhf56CJOJPJQJ]aJ hfhfCJOJPJQJaJhTh*>25B*phS5h*>2h*>256 h*>2h*>2hTh*>2B*phhTh*>26B*ph +C+t+G,,!./0:0a111333(4k444K5536 & F9Dgd`& & F9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&:0L0L1`1a1f11111L2,3B3C3L3333333һ҂jVG6 h>h>5B*CJaJph2h>h>B*CJaJph2&h>5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2/ jh>h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph2#h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)hRhRB*CJOJPJQJaJph2#hRB*CJOJPJQJaJph2,hRhR5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)h>h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph2/h>h>5B*CJOJPJQJ\aJph23'4(494j4k4444495J5K55526369666*7+7475797g7o77798v8w899999:::::::::;;;N<O<T<ʲʛʛʛʛʄ,h*h*5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2,h>h>>*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2/h>h>5B*CJOJPJQJ\aJph2)h>h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph2 h>h>5B*CJaJph2h>h>B*CJaJph21366+7577w89::;O<U<<<==>I?d@@@@,A & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F9Dgd`&T<U<<<<<<=====>>>H?I?c?e???c@d@p@@@@@@@@@+A,A\A]AAAA/B0BBBBBӿ꭛{{{{{{{{p{h+hRCJaJ hRhR5B*CJaJph2hRhRB*CJaJph2#h>B*CJOJPJQJaJph2#h*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2&h*5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2,h*h*5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)h*h*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2,,A]AA0BB}CCCDDE/FUF)G~GGHHJIfII & Fgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&BBBBRC|C}CCCCCCDDDDEEE.F/FTFUFF͸}pf^QJJ=J=}}hTh*>25B*phS5 h*>2h*>2h*>2hbOJPJQJhbCJaJhfOJPJQJhfhfOJPJQJ hfhfCJOJPJQJaJ)hfhf5>*CJOJPJQJ\aJ)hfh*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)h*h*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2#h*B*CJOJPJQJaJph2 hRhR5B*CJaJph2hRhRB*CJaJph2F(G)G}G~GGGGHHHHHIIJIeIfIIIIJJJJK KKKKKKK˽oaQhKhK6CJPJ]aJhKhK5CJPJaJ!hKhK56CJPJ]aJhKhKCJPJaJhThK5B*phYhTh5d5B*phYhKhKB*phh6h6B*phhThm5>*B*ph}1hThzB*phhThvmB*phhvmCJOJPJQJaJ hfhfCJOJPJQJaJIJJKL|MnNQQ3SS TTTVWYYYY1Z & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`&KLLLLLLLMAM{M|MMMMMmNnNsNuNN O OOذn]N<*CJaJh.PQCJaJ jh+h.PQ5CJaJh+h.PQ56CJaJh+h.PQCJaJ hTh.PQ5B*CJaJphS5h+h.PQ5CJaJ@1ZZZ[B[[[[3\\\]]|^^H__;`g```:aaa & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&t^{^|^^^^8_F_G_H____:`;`S`Y`f`g``````9a:aaaaaaaaabbkblbbbbbbbb/c0ccccccccdddijij!hThm|B*CJPJaJph!hThF3B*CJPJaJph!hTh.PQB*CJPJaJph'hTh.PQ6B*CJPJ]aJphh+h.PQ5CJaJ hTh.PQ5B*CJaJphS5h+h.PQCJaJ8aablbbbb0ccccddd e!e/effgg-i7i & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`&ddddd e e e!e.e/e=eZe[e\eueeeufffffigjgugggggؿssasssKssassKsK+h8Ch8C5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2"h8CB*CJOJQJ\aJph2(h8Ch8CB*CJOJQJ\aJph2h8Ch8CCJOJQJaJ"h.PQB*CJOJQJ\aJph2+h.PQh.PQ5B*CJOJQJ\aJph21h.PQh.PQ56B*CJOJQJ\]aJph2hTh.PQ5B*phYhThm5>*B*ph}1hThz^5B*phYguh,i-i6i7iuiujjjukkkkkkknlolslllll!m"m&m'm(mamcmsmmmmmmm2n3nsnnnnnnnnnnn븧 jh+h8CCJaJh+h8C5CJaJh+h8CCJH*aJ hTh8C5B*CJaJphS5h+h8CCJaJ"h8CB*CJOJQJ\aJph2+h8Ch8C5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2(h8Ch8CB*CJOJQJ\aJph227ikkkoll"mmm3nnnnn.oooDp(q[qqqrr & Fgdu & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&nnnnoo oo-o.o3o8oooooooo8pCpDpHpUp_pepppppqq#q'q(q4qZq[qq侪䞐sa# *hTh8C5B*CJaJphS5 *hBh8C56CJaJ *hBh8C>*CJaJ *hBh8C5CJaJ *hBh8CCJaJh8CCJaJh+h8C5CJaJhUh8C>*CJaJh+h8CCJH*aJh+h8C56CJaJh+h8CCJaJ hTh8C5B*CJaJphS5&qqqqqqq4rrrrrrrrsss sBsFsOsQs[s\sws{s|sssssssssɼ}}}k}kZ}} huhu6B*CJaJph2#huhu56B*CJaJph2 huhu5B*CJaJph2 huhuB*CJH*aJph2huhuB*CJaJph2huhu5B*\ph2hThu5B*phYhTh/5B*phY hTh8C5B*CJaJphS5h+h8CCJaJh+h8C56CJaJ#r s\sssttt0tt\uuuuu vPvvxxxy & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & Fgdu & Fgdu & Fgdussssssstttttt t/t0t4tBtDtttttuu[u\uuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv v1vIvKvOvPvvvwxxxxμΫΫ𚉉!huhuB*CJPJaJph2 huh.PQ5B*CJaJph2 huhu>*B*CJaJph2#huhu56B*CJaJph2 huhu5B*CJaJph2 huhuB*CJH*aJph2huhuB*CJaJph26xxxxxxxxyyfyiyyyyyyz%z*z+z5z:z;z?zzzzzzz={>{{{{{{{{{'|(|0|1|2|4|j|n||||||||}}} }νννΫν& jhuhu5B*CJaJph2#huhu56B*CJaJph2 huhuB*CJH*aJph2huhuB*CJaJph2#huhu5B*CJH*aJph2 huhu5B*CJaJph2;yy+z;zzz>{{(|1|||} }r}}~l~~~I>ò & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& }.}5}q}r}}}}}}~~0~k~l~~~~~~~~~~~02GHɺ}}}}}l}[}[}l}[}}J} hUhU>*B*CJaJph2 hUhU5B*CJaJph2 hUhUB*CJH*aJph2hUhUB*CJaJph2#hUhU6B*CJ]aJph2hUhuB*CJaJph2huh.PQ5B*ph2hu5CJOJQJ\aJ+hs qhu5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2 huhu5B*CJaJph2huhuB*CJaJph2HI-0=>noƀȀ̀̀ҀԀ&0C0TU͂ту׃݃$.:ཽமkkkkk(hs qhUB*CJOJQJ\aJph2.hs qhU6B*CJOJQJ\]aJph2+hs qhU5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2h4hUB*CJaJph2#hUhU5>*B*CJaJph2 hUhUB*CJH*aJph2hUhUB*CJaJph2 hUhU5B*CJaJph2%̀U;t~HpYryW^Xm & Fgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&:;Yst{|}~Ą!"ąGH۴ɟoo]HHH;;;;;;hThm|B*CJph(hhB*CJOJQJ\aJph"hB*CJOJQJ\aJph"hJB*CJOJQJ\aJphhU5CJOJQJ\aJhLm5CJOJQJ\aJ(hs qhJB*CJOJQJ\aJph2(hJhJB*CJOJQJ\aJph2"hJB*CJOJQJ\aJph2%hJ5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2"hUB*CJOJQJ\aJph2HopHXYsxHqrwxy5VW]^5ߋ5KLPWXμxxfxx# jhJh3B*CJaJph2hJh3B*CJaJph2 hJh35B*CJaJph2hJhB*CJaJph2)hJh56B*CJ\]aJph2#hJh5B*CJ\aJph2hThUB*phhTh6B*]phhThB*phhThm|B*CJph(X_579flm 5ÎĎ555HI5’“Гѓ>?DE”•CD–+,— ˜ΫhJhB*CJaJph2#hJh5B*CJ\aJph2 hJh3B*CJH*aJph2#hJh356B*CJaJph2hJh3B*CJaJph2 hJh35B*CJaJph2=m ĎI’ѓ?ED,if^ & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&™hinšdefBJ]^g 56st#*+~ @Aӟݟ޾#hJh356B*CJaJph2 hJh35B*CJaJph2hJh3B*CJaJph2 hJh>*B*CJaJph2hJhB*CJaJph2#hJh5B*CJ\aJph2:^ 6t+ ATyǡݡ1  & F^gd3  & F$^$gd3  & FT^Tgd3  & F ^ gd3 & F gd`& & F gd`& & F L^`Lgd`&Aؠߠ STxyơǡܡݡ &/01FGyzǢȢ67v̻޻ޖ̅ޖ hJh36B*CJaJph2 hJh3B*CJH*aJph2& jhJh35B*CJaJph2 hJh35B*CJaJph2#hJh356B*CJaJph2hJh3B*CJaJph2# jhJh3B*CJaJph241GzȢ7wTHKaǩ & F gd`& & F gd`&  & FT^Tgd  & FT^Tgd3  & F$^$gd3  & F^gd3  & F ,^,gd`&vwţУSTФGHХJKŦŧŨ`aũƩǩѩ޻||j|#hThho56B*CJaJphhThhoB*CJaJphhThB*CJaJph#hJh5B*CJ\aJph2hJhB*CJaJph2#hTh356B*CJaJph hJh3B*CJH*aJph2hJh3B*CJaJph2#hJh356B*CJaJph2'ѩөŪƪ.0ūܫݫޫ Z[hjCEUViۭݭ?@JKνଛww#hThm|56B*CJaJph# jhThhoB*CJaJph hThho6B*CJaJph!jh+hho0JCJUaJ hThho5B*CJaJph#hThho56B*CJaJphhThhoB*CJaJph hThhoB*CJH*aJph-ǩƪޫ[V@KɮFXα & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&KWYiȮɮEFPWXXXͱα34ABXuv%&hTh"MB*CJaJphS5hThOAB*CJaJphS5hTh/B*CJaJphS5hOAB*CJaJphh/h/B*CJaJph hThm|5B*CJaJphhThm|B*CJaJph hThm|6B*CJaJph.4Bv&-ʶ/wH#P & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&&,-EQj--6-ɶʶ./;Fvw!GHT]"#OP\gfgϯϞ hTh.6B*CJaJphhThJB*CJaJph hThJ5B*CJaJphhTh.B*CJaJph hTh.5B*CJaJphS5 hTh.5B*CJaJph>g+o>SY%BѽžsRcg & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&*+NOno =>RSXY$%ABнѽľžrsտQRY߻ hJhZ5B*CJaJph2hJhZB*CJaJph2)hZhZ56B*CJ\]aJph2#hZhZ5B*CJ\aJph2# jhTh.B*CJaJph hTh.5B*CJaJphhTh.B*CJaJph4bcfgq545:;JKqrs&'ͼͪ#hZhZ6B*CJ]aJph2 hJhZ>*B*CJaJph2hZhZB*CJaJph2 hZhZ5B*CJaJph2#hZhZ5B*CJ\aJph2<5;Ks'5QXL $ & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&'345gPQWXKL gk#$ }~ɴɣɃɃqeYhSQB*CJaJph2hZB*CJaJph2#hZhZ6B*CJ]aJph2 hZhZ5B*CJaJph2hZhZB*CJaJph2 hZhZB*CJ\aJph2)hZhZ56B*CJ\]aJph2#hZhZ5B*CJ\aJph2#hTh5>*B*CJaJph#hThZ5>*B*CJaJph"~+D`8 /Q  & F ^gd`&  & F ^gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&*+CD_`78 ./t{ ոzzi hZhZ5B*CJaJph2#hZhZ5B*CJ\aJph2hZB*CJaJph2hZhZB*CJaJph2 hZhZB*CJ\aJph2hZhSQB*CJaJph2hSQ6B*CJaJph2hSQB*CJaJph2hSQhSQB*CJaJph2hSQh"MB*CJaJph2) PQ #$ABHQq` hThZB*CJH*aJph# jhThZB*CJaJph hThZ5B*CJaJphhThZB*CJaJphhSQhSQB*CJaJph2hSQh"MB*CJaJph2hZB*CJaJph2 hZhZ5B*CJaJph2#hZhZ5B*CJ\aJph2hZhZB*CJaJph2%$B5u(aoe  & F  ^ gd`&  & F  ^ gd`&  & F ^gd`&^gdZ  & F ^gd`&  & F x^xgd`&  & F ^gd`&45tuv{|} '(`anodeZ[κ# jhThZB*CJaJph hThZB*CJH*aJph& jhThZ5B*CJaJph hThZ5B*CJaJph hThZ6B*CJaJphhThZB*CJaJph;e[QjR~=y  & F ^gd`&  & F ^gd`&  & F ^gd`&  & F x^xgd`& & F  ^ `gd`& & F  ^ `gd`&CPQ`ijmsQRs|}Lk}~ݺݺݺ̯ucuZc *hJCJaJ# *hThZ5B*CJaJphS5 *hJhZ5CJaJ j *hJhZCJaJ *hJhZCJaJ hThZ5B*CJaJphS5h+hZCJaJ#hThZ56B*CJaJph hThZ5B*CJaJphhThZB*CJaJph& jhThZ5B*CJaJph#~PR^`Z\qsJKMj<=xySTYZ[\otdfjk|ݯ̡hThm5>*B*ph}1 jh+hZ5CJaJ jh+hZCJaJ hThZ5B*CJaJphS5h+hZ5CJaJh+hZCJH*aJh+hZCJaJ<Tk4Gkhyku?y & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F gd`&  & F ^gd`&  & F x^xgd`&  & F H^Hgd`&|34?@GHFGHƹƫveVeGG5#hTh5>*B*CJaJph}1hJh2dB*CJaJph2hJhB*CJaJph2 hJh5B*CJaJph2 hJh*B*phhh6B*phhhB*phhwi6B*phhwiB*phhThSQ5>*B*ph}1hThJ5>*B*ph}1HjkHghxyHjktu&>?&fhxy&[\࿰ర|phJh*B*CJaJph2hJh*B*CJ]aJph2#hJh"M6B*CJ]aJph2hJh"MB*CJaJph22!-.>EZVWZfZYҽzkzZHHzzzHzzzz#hJh*B*ph}1hThm5>*B*ph}1h2dh2dB*ph2 hJhj}CJOJPJQJaJ&hJhj}6CJOJPJQJ]aJlS` o     ;vF gy & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&x^xgd2dRS`b_`ijuye y y     y   J [ n o v y {      p   ͼ͙xxxͼxͼͼg hJh\B*CJ\aJph2hJh\B*CJaJph2#hJhj}6B*CJ]aJph2#hJh\5B*CJ\aJph2 hJhj}5B*CJaJph2 hJhj}B*CJ\aJph2#hJhj}5B*CJ\aJph2 hJh\5B*CJaJph2hJhj}B*CJaJph2&            :;W`;uv˿˱r]rr)hJh\56B*CJ\]aJph2#hJh\5B*CJ\aJph2 jhJh\CJaJ hTh\5B*CJaJphS5hJh\56CJaJhJh\6CJ]aJhJh\5CJaJhJh\56CJ]aJhJh\5CJ]aJhJh\CJaJhJh\CJ]aJ;EFM;;377 77fgxy777stu.07CD𽽽𮮽 hJh"MB*CJH*aJph2 hJh'SB*CJH*aJph2hJh'SB*CJaJph2hJh"MB*CJaJph2#hJh\6B*CJ]aJph2#hJh\5B*CJ\aJph2hJh\B*CJaJph27yuD/r[*'  9!*"b""""H# & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&DS]a7./7hqrrZ[r)*<Nr& ' r   8!9!r!!!)"*"a"hJh<+CJH*aJhJh<+5CJaJhJh<+56CJaJhJh<+CJaJhJh\B*CJaJph2 hJh'S6B*CJaJph2hJh'SB*CJaJph2 hJh'S5B*CJaJph21a"b"r"""""""""#2#4#=#@#F#G#H#r######$$&$'$7$8$`$k$l$$$$$$$$~l~#hTh<+56B*CJaJphhTh<+B*CJaJph jh+h<+CJaJh+h<+CJH*aJh+h<+56CJaJh+h<+5CJaJh+h<+CJaJ hTh<+5B*CJaJphDr#hTh<+5>*B*CJaJphS5 hTh<+5B*CJaJphS5(H###'$8$$$$%>%Y%x%%%&j&&a'''  & F x^xgd`&  & F j^jgd`& & F  ^ `gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&$$$$%%(%=%>%X%Y%w%x%%%%%&&(&0&5&i&j&&&('Z'_'`'a'''''''''(((((((((((())R)Z)[)\)òաՐ!jh+h<+0JCJUaJ hTh<+5B*CJaJph hTh<+6B*CJaJph#hTh<+56B*CJaJphhTh<+B*CJaJphh+h<+CJaJ hTh<+5B*CJaJphS58'((()\))))p***g+++,!-s--./t0 & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & Fgdg & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&  & F ^gd`&\)))))))))))o*p*****ͼo^O=#hThg56B*CJaJphhThgB*CJaJph hThg5B*CJaJphS5 hThg5B*CJaJphDrhThg5B*ph}1hZB*phhThZ5B*ph}1hTh5B*ph}1hTh5B*ph hThJ5B*CJaJphS5 hTh<+5B*CJaJphS5#hTh<+56B*CJaJphhTh<+B*CJaJph*****+ +f+g++++++++++,,, -!---/-`-d-r-s------........///s0t000ϬϬϊ hThg5B*CJaJphDr hThg5B*CJaJph#hThg56B*CJaJph hThgB*CJH*aJph hThg5B*CJaJphS5hThgB*CJaJph hThg6B*CJaJph0t0011122333$4445.66[777"8c89  & F ^gd`&  & F ^gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&0000111111111112222233333333333333#4$494Y44444444444K5M5Y555-6.6Y666666޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼޼ޙ޼޼޼޼޼޼# jhJhgB*CJaJph2 hJhg6B*CJaJph2 hJhg5B*CJaJph2 hJhgB*CJH*aJph2hJhgB*CJaJph2#hJhg56B*CJaJph2<66N7Z7[77777777777778!8"8N8b8c88888889999/909;9<9N99999﫚rrhThgB*CJaJphh+hgCJaJh+hg56CJaJ hThg5B*CJaJphS5 hThg5B*CJaJphDr#hJhg56B*CJaJph2# jhJhgB*CJaJph2hJhgB*CJaJph2 hJhg5B*CJaJph2)990999R:::;;Z<<<<@=%>E??D@@ A\AAGB & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&  & F ^gd`&999Q:R:U:V::::::::;;;;;;;;;;;<Y<Z<<<νν著|p^L# *hThg5B*CJaJphS5# *hThg5B*CJaJph *hMOhgCJaJ# *hThgB*CJH*aJph *hThgB*CJaJphjhMO0JU& *hThg56B*CJaJph hThg5B*CJaJphS5hThgB*CJaJph# jhThgB*CJaJph hThg5B*CJaJph<<<<<?=@=]=c=h=m==$>%>>D?E?????@C@D@@@@ A A[A\AAAAFBGB[B\BBBBBBBݱѢђo *hJh$B*CJaJph2# *hJh$5B*CJaJph2 *hThg5>*B*ph}1 j *hMOhgCJaJ *hThJB*CJaJph *hMOhg56CJaJ *hMOhgCJaJ# *hThg5B*CJaJphS5 *hThgB*CJaJph+GBBBPCC#DgDhDpDDD%EzEEEsFF+GhGG & Fgd`& & F9Dgd`& & F9Dgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&B CCOCPC{CCC"D#DfDgDhDoDpDDDDD$E%E>EpEyEzEEEEEEpFrFsFFF*Gʼpp______!h4hB*CJPJaJph#h4h"M6B*CJ]aJphh4h"MB*CJaJphh4hm8B*CJaJphhThm85>*B*ph}1hThz^5>*B*ph}1 *h$h$5B*ph2 *hThJB*CJaJph& *hJh"M6B*CJ]aJph2 *hJh"MB*CJaJph2#*G+GCGgGhGGGGGGGGGHHHRHSHjHHHH7I8IIII~~~ҏooo`O` hThm8B*CJH*aJphhThm8B*CJaJphh4hB*CJaJph h4h"M>*B*CJaJphh4hm8B*CJaJph#h4hJ6B*CJ]aJph h4hJB*CJ]aJph h4hm8B*CJ]aJphh4h"MB*CJaJph#h4h"M6B*CJ]aJphh4hCJPJaJGHSHH8III JEJlJJ K'KKKlKKLCLnLLL"MPMM & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&IIIIJ JDJEJkJlJJJJJ K K&K'K-KAKJKKKkKlKKKKLLBLCLmLnLvLLLLLL൤shhThJB*phS5hThJ5B*phS5hTh5B*phS5hJ hhh4h5CJaJ hTh5B*CJaJphS5h4hCJaJ hThm8B*CJH*aJphhThB*CJaJphhThm8B*CJaJph hThm85B*CJaJphY&LLLL!M"MOMPMMMMN NNNNOOOOOOOOO&P'P4PQPRPPPPPPPPPP QQQCQDQ±±±±±¥±{{{{o{o{o{o{o{h4B*CJaJphh4h4B*CJaJphhTh5B*phYh4h>*CJH*aJh4h>*CJaJ hTh5B*CJaJphS5h4hCJaJhThJB*phS5hThJ5B*phS5hThJ5>*B*phS5hThJ>*B*phS5+M NNOO'PRPPDQSSuTTTTUGUfUVVVhWWuXX & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&DQQQRQ[QQRSSSSSStTuTTTTTTTTUUUFUGUKU^UeUfUrUUUVVVVVVVgWhWWWWWWtXuXXXXXXeYfYYYYhhB*CJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2h5B*CJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2hB*CJaJph2hhB*CJaJph2#hh56B*CJaJph2:XXfYYZ}ZZ[~[[:\\]y]]]I^^^^q_y__4`  & F ^gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&  & F \ ^\ gd`&YZZ|Z}ZZZZZ[[l[}[~[[[[9\:\\\\]]x]y]]]]]]^!^H^I^^^^^^^^^^p_q_x_y____3`4````4a5aa𨓓)hhB*CJOJPJQJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2# jhhB*CJaJph2& jhh5B*CJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2hhB*CJaJph2:4``5abFb^bbcPddd'eeejf g.g5grgg & F [$\$gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F  9D^ gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`&abbEbFb]b^bbbbbccccccIdOdPdddddd&e'e}e~eeeeeeøЦr`UUUh"MhCJaJ# jhhB*CJaJph2& jhh5B*CJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2hhB*CJaJph2#hh56B*CJaJph2hThCnB*phhTh5B*phYhThCn5B*phYhhCJPJaJ)hhB*CJOJPJQJaJph2!eifjffg g-g.g4g5gqgrgggggghhh0h6h?h@hmhwhxhyhhhhhYiZiciiiiiiзşteeehTh"MB*CJaJph#hTh"M56B*CJaJphh"Mh"MCJaJh"Mh"M6CJ]aJh"Mh"M5CJaJh+h"M6CJaJh+h"M56CJaJh+h"MCJaJh+h"M5CJaJ hTh"M5B*CJaJphDrhCJaJhhCJaJ'gh@hyhhZiii@jPjZjjjk%kekkkKllllm & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&i?j@jOjPjYjZjjjjjjkk$k%kdkekkkkkkkk>lJlKlllllllllƷ{l[ll hTh5B*CJaJphhThB*CJaJphhThG B*CJaJphh\CJOJPJQJaJh"MCJOJPJQJaJ h"Mh"MCJOJPJQJaJhTh"MB*CJaJph hThG 5B*CJaJphhThz^5B*phYh"Mh"M5CJaJhTh"MB*CJaJph#lmmmmmnKnLnSn|nnnnnooooo{p|ppppqqqqqqqqƶөwhhhWhhhhhhhWh hhhhB*CJH*aJph2hhhhB*CJaJph2+hhhh6B*CJOJQJ]aJph2#hhhh56B*CJaJph2hCJPJaJhhCJPJaJhh6OJPJQJ]hhhOJPJQJhhOJPJQJhh5OJPJQJ!hh56OJPJQJ] mmLnno|ppqqqsrrr$shst[t*uZuwVxx & F 9Dgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`&qqq rrrrrsrrrrrs#s$sgshstttZt[tu)u*u9uPuYuZuuu!vZvZwwwwwUx˾ˌyyycˌ+hhhh56B*CJOJQJaJph2%hhhhB*CJOJQJaJph2/hhhh6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph22hhhh56B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph2hhhhCJPJaJ)hhhhB*CJOJPJQJaJph2hhhhB*CJaJph2 hhhh5B*CJaJph2&UxVxZxxxxxZyuyvyzz!z"z#zZzzzzzl{m{{{{{{{{||#|(|W|X||||||||6}7}>}}}}}³³| hhhhB*CJ]aJph2&hhhh56B*CJ]aJph2#hhhh56B*CJaJph2hhhhB*CJaJph2 hhhh5B*CJaJph2,h4hh5B*CJOJPJQJaJph2)hhhhB*CJOJPJQJaJph20xxvyz#zzm{{{{|X||||7}}Q~R~T~c~ & F gd`&9Dgds & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F 9Dgd`& & F 9Dgd`&}P~Q~R~S~T~b~c~~~~~~~~~34noӷxiiXiGGGG!h4h:}B*CJPJaJph h4h:}6B*CJaJphh4h:}B*CJaJph h4h"66B*CJaJphh4h"6B*CJaJphhThz^5B*phY#hshs5CJOJPJQJaJ7jئhThT5CJOJPJQJUaJmHnHuhsCJOJPJQJaJhhhB*CJaJph2hhhhB*CJaJph2c~~~4o}TQb & F gd`& & F9Dgd:} & F 9Dgd:} & F9Dgd:} & F 9Dgd:} & F9Dgd:} & Fgd:} & Fgd"6 & Fgd"6o.|}ۂ08Sɵqd\R\h"66B*phh"6B*phh:}h:}CJPJaJh:}B*CJPJaJph!h:}h:}B*CJPJaJph'h:}h:}6B*CJPJ]aJph!h:}hqB*CJPJaJph'h:}hq6B*CJPJ]aJph!h4h:}B*CJPJaJph!h4hqB*CJPJaJph'h4hq6B*CJPJ]aJphSTZPQabDŽԄabi-.tyzVWχЇöuuuuuffhshsCJOJQJaJhThsB*phhsCJPJaJhshs6CJPJaJhshs6CJPJ]aJhshs5CJPJaJhshsCJPJaJhTh;z:>*B*phhTh;z:5>*B*phhTh%(B*phhTh:}B*phh"6h"6B*ph(bb.zWЇ(ω  & F^gd`&  & Fx^xgd`&  & F9Dgds & F9D^gd`& & F9D^gd`& & Fgd`& & F 9D^gd`& & F T9D^Tgd`& & F F9D^Fgd`&׈ވ%&'(-/͉Ήω]^NJϊ<ʵªʝʪseeeh;z:h;z:6B*]ph2h;z:hq6B*]ph2htB*ph2ht5B*ph2h;z:5B*ph2h;z:h;z:5B*ph2h;z:hqB*ph2h;z:hq5B*ph2h;z:B*ph2h;z:h;z:B*ph2h;z:h;z:56B*ph2hshs6CJPJ]aJhshsCJPJaJ'ω^Qv3F .=KZyΎx & Fgd`& & F   ^ gd`&  & Fh ^h gd`&  & FH ^H gd`&  & Fh ^h gd`&  & F^gd`&  & FH ^H gd`&<OPQuvϋ'23(3EFэ֍  -.3<=JKYZxy͎Ύڎ3wx3XYen3\溨 h;z:h;z:5B*CJaJph2#h;z:h;z:56B*CJaJph2h;z:h;z:B*CJaJph2h;z:5B*ph2hqB*ph2h;z:hqB*ph2h;z:h;z:B*ph2h;z:h;z:6B*]ph28xY^"Fϒ Dz֓S&Rw ٗ#o & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&\]^ȑˑ !"3EFΒϒ  34<CDyzՓ֓..RS%&QRvw &)/_`ɗҗؗٗ"#&,7noͻܻܻܻͻ#h;z:h;z:56B*CJaJph2h;z:h;z:B*CJaJph2 h;z:h;z:5B*CJaJph2# jh;z:h;z:B*CJaJph2Jorxؘݘ&™ř͙ &lm+,;<op؜ٜ𼮢ssssssssssh(<h(<B*CJaJph2h(<hqB*CJaJph2 h(<h(<5B*CJaJph2h(<B*CJaJph2h(<5B*CJaJph2 h(<h;z:5B*CJaJph2 h;z:h;z:5B*CJaJph2#h;z:h;z:56B*CJaJph2h;z:h;z:B*CJaJph2'™m,<pٜۜAН9Wfáӡ & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&$a$gdt & Fgd`& & Fgd`&ٜڜۜ1>@AϝН89ߞ(>VW\___efųųšraRRRRh4heB*CJaJph2 h4he5B*CJaJph2 h4h;z:5B*CJaJph2h4htB*CJaJph2h4h;z:B*CJaJph2#h4h;z:56B*CJaJph2#hThs6B*CJ]aJphhThsB*CJaJph hth(<5B*CJaJph24j. hThT5B*CJUaJmHnHph2ufl¡áҡӡ !67VW__Уѣ;<_ଝzo```h4hqB*CJaJph2h;z:htB*ph2 h4h;z:5B*CJaJph2#h4h;z:6B*CJ]aJph2h4h;z:B*CJaJph2 h4he5B*CJaJph2 h4ht>*B*CJaJph2#h4ht6B*CJ]aJph2h4htB*CJaJph2 h4ht5B*CJaJph2#ӡ!7Wѣ<@/ާ  & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&¤ˤؤY?@H./H~ݧާ HHH(),4H͹# jheheB*CJaJph2& jhehe5B*CJaJph2 hehe5B*CJaJph2#hehe56B*CJaJph2heheB*CJaJph2B)7X֮ܯKϱy : & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F ^ `gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&  & Fj^jgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&67::WX[׭ح:ծ֮-:;ۯܯ7ο|||k|]|k|kk|k|k|k| jhkjhkjB*ph2 hkjhkj5B*CJaJph2hkjhkjB*CJaJph2#hkjhkj56B*CJaJph2 htht5B*CJaJph2 hTht6B*CJaJphhThtB*CJaJph hthe5B*CJaJph2 hehe5B*CJaJph2heheB*CJaJph2!7AJKȱαϱxy  ׳9:HIĵ͵εHI%&WX÷ķϽϱhThkjCJaJhThkj56CJaJhThkj5CJaJ#hkjhkj56B*CJaJph2 hkjhkj5B*CJaJph2hkjhkjB*CJaJph2 hkjhkj>*B*CJaJph29:IεI&XķŷT$If^TgdTl $If^gdTl $Ifgdkjl  & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& ķŷƷǷȷɷʷշ01ӹ34ɾukk^^hThV5B*phYha[6B*phha[ha[B*H*phha[ha[B*phhTha[5B*phYha[B*phhThz^5>*B*ph}1hTh85>*B*ph}1hTh8B*ph)j|hThTB*UmHnHphuhth;z:B*ph2 hThkjhThkjB*CJaJph!ŷƷǷɷʷ1~vnffnv & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&gd8gdtnkdt|$$Ifl$$ t0644 lap ytT 4ں; & F/$9DIfgdTl $9DIfgdTl & F9Dgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& ˺ͺٺں"9:;ڻ  /0>?WX}~ü߼ѴѭѴޭ#hThv5CJOJPJQJaJhThv5CJaJ hThvhThvCJOJQJaJhThv>*CJPJaJhThvCJPJaJhThv5CJPJaJhvCJPJaJhVCJPJaJ8 0?X~xcKKKKKc & F/$9DIfgdTl $9DIfgdTl kd$$Ifl0$ t0644 lapytTxcKc & F/$9DIfgdTl $9DIfgdTl kd?$$Ifl0$ t0644 lapytTxccKKc & F/$9DIfgdTl $9DIfgdTl kd$$Ifl0$ t0644 lapytT+,=>NOPQRǽȽνUVW̾;JKķyllll_hVha[CJPJaJha[hqCJPJaJ *hhVCJPJaJ *hha[CJPJaJha[CJPJaJha[6CJPJaJhThz^5B*phYhVhVCJPJaJha[hVCJPJaJhvhvCJPJaJ hThvhThv5CJaJhThvCJOJQJaJ%,>OPxcccKKKc & F/$9DIfgdTl $9DIfgdTl kd}$$Ifl0$ t0644 lapytTPQRȽW;Kxmc[QQcc & F09Dgd`& & F0gd`& & F09Dgd`& 9D^gdvkd$$Ifl0$ t0644 lapytTKTUz|}  &'1~ooooooooooooY+h"hV5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2h4h/*B*CJaJph2#h4h/*5B*CJ\aJph2h4h"B*CJaJph2 h4h"5B*CJaJph2 h4hV5B*CJaJph2h4hVB*CJaJph2hV5B*ph2hVhV5B*ph2hTha[5B*phYhThVB*ph KU 'VdT & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&1UVbdcdST춶uddUdUh/*h/*B*CJaJph2 h/*h/*5B*CJaJph2 h"h"B*CJH*aJph2 h"h"5B*CJaJph2h"h"B*CJaJph2h"B*CJOJQJaJph2%h"h"B*CJOJQJaJph2+h"hV5B*CJOJQJ\aJph2h"hV5B*ph2%h"hVB*CJOJQJaJph2!6?XY,-_`otq./8q  𦕆uu hh"B*CJH*aJph2hh"B*CJaJph2 hh"5B*CJaJph2 h/*h"5B*CJaJph2# jh/*h/*B*CJaJph2*jh/*h/*0JB*CJUaJph2 h/*h/*5B*CJaJph2h/*h/*B*CJaJph2.Y-`/ 3U & F0gd`&gd & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&1ijq23iKSTUii-õwofofoZh/*h/*5CJaJh/*6CJaJh/*CJaJ jh/*h/*CJaJh/*h/*6CJaJh/*h/*CJaJhh/*B*phhThV5>*B*phhTh/*5>*B*phhhVB*ph2# jhh"B*CJaJph2hh"B*CJaJph2 hh"5B*CJaJph2#&a*pQV & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`&^gd/* & F0gd`& & F0gd`&-1icc%&. .`aʿxxxiXXiX h\Xh\X5B*CJaJph2h\Xh\XB*CJaJph2hh\X6B*CJph2hh\XB*CJph2hh\X5B*CJph2hh/*B*CJph2hh/*5B*CJph2hTh/*B*ph jho!hTUmHnHuh+h/*5CJaJh/*h/*CJaJh/*h/*56CJaJ .uw|)*.<>op.PQ.UVtu'CD_`+2#h\Xh\X56B*CJaJph2# jh\Xh\XB*CJaJph2 h\Xh\X5B*CJaJph2 h\Xh\XB*CJH*aJph2h\Xh\XB*CJaJph2 hh\X5B*CJaJph2<D`3bZG5m & F0gd`& & Fgd}a & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&23abYZFGO￲vih-8h/*5B*ph2hTh-85>*B*phhh\X6B*CJph2hh\XB*CJH*ph2hh\X5B*CJH*ph2hh\XB*CJph2hh\X5B*CJph2# jh\Xh\XB*CJaJph2h\Xh\XB*CJaJph2 h\Xh\X5B*CJaJph2#45&5lmJKSb)*TүүҤr`rrrrrSh}ah}a5B*ph2#hThq6B*CJ]aJphhThqB*CJaJphh}ah}a5CJaJh}ah}aCJaJhh}a5CJaJhh}aCJaJ# jhTh}aB*CJaJph hTh}a5B*CJaJphYhTh}aB*CJaJphhh-8B*CJaJphhh}aB*CJaJph K*0!52 & FgdT & FgdT & Fgd$q & Fgd$q  & F^gd$q & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F09Dgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&TVFTVV/0;V澭{n_NN__NN h|h|5B*CJaJph2h|h|B*CJaJph2h|h|5B*ph2 h4hB5B*CJaJph2#h4h|5B*CJH*aJph2h4h|B*CJaJph2 h4h|5B*CJaJph2hBhBCJPJaJh|B*CJaJph2hBhBB*CJaJph2!hBhBB*CJPJaJph2h}aB*ph2 !"V45VQDEQĹwwfwZwwffFwf& jh$qh$q5B*CJaJph2h$qB*CJaJph2 h$qh$q5B*CJaJph2h$qh$qB*CJaJph2"h$q5B*CJOJQJaJph2(h$qh$q5B*CJOJQJaJph2h+hX5CJaJh+hXCJaJh$qCJaJh|h|B*CJaJph2 h|h|5B*CJaJph2& jh|h|5B*CJaJph2QQ12Jefo=>?οοΡooo^M hThq5B*CJaJph2 hThq5B*CJaJph#hThq6B*CJ]aJphhThqB*CJaJph hThT5B*CJaJph2hThTB*CJaJphhhTB*CJaJph2hh$qB*CJaJph2 hh$q5B*CJaJph2 h$qh|5B*CJaJph2h$qh$qB*CJaJph22f?* <%^ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & FgdT & FgdT & FgdT?M\)*24ѱѥ||m[mJm hh5B*CJaJph2#hh56B*CJaJph2hhB*CJaJph2hThB*CJaJph2hB*CJaJph2h5B*CJaJph2hTB*CJaJph2hThqB*CJaJph2 hhT5B*CJaJph2hThTB*CJaJph2hThTB*CJaJph2 hThT5B*CJaJph2 7;<NP$%8:'/޻ު޻ު޻ޝ}l]hh B*CJaJph hh5B*CJaJph hh6B*CJaJphhhB*CJaJphhThz^5B*phY hhB*CJH*aJph2#hh56B*CJaJph2 hh5B*CJaJph2hhB*CJaJph2# jhhB*CJaJph2!/=AF]^uqr}cd},1:ࠠsssssh\h\hhhq5CJaJhhqCJaJhTh B*CJaJphhThqB*CJaJphhhe9B*CJaJphhhqB*CJaJph hh B*CJH*aJphhhB*CJaJph hh >*B*CJaJphhh B*CJaJph hh 6B*CJaJphrd;yFT?sE " & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&:;xyEFVy?STy7>?qrsyմ՟ՐՅttehChhChB*OJQJph2 hChhCh5B*OJQJph2hThqB*phhThB*CJaJph)hThq56B*CJ\]aJphhThe9B*CJaJph#hThq6B*CJ]aJphhThqB*CJaJphhhqCJaJ hThq5B*CJaJphS5%(--?CDE -!"-EF(LM()* <= /0߾#hChhCh56B*CJaJph2# jhChhChB*CJaJph2 hChhCh5B*CJaJph2hChhChB*CJaJph2#hChhe956B*CJaJph2 hChhe95B*CJaJph2hChhe9B*CJaJph26"M*=0;0dm9 Y  F }   & F0^gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  & F0^gd`&  & F0 ^ gd`&0GH  :; /0 '1cdlm 8 9 H L X Y       > @ E F | }  N O      I J      ̺̺̩̩ hChhChB*CJH*aJph2#hChhCh56B*CJaJph2hChhChB*CJaJph2& jhChhCh5B*CJaJph2 hChhCh5B*CJaJph2B} O   J    =   [qQ@{Sm & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&   < =      /7RXYZ[ pqPQﭭ}k# jhThChB*CJaJph#hThCh56B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJphhThChB*CJaJph# jhChhChB*CJaJph2#hChhCh56B*CJaJph2hChhChB*CJaJph2 hChhCh5B*CJaJph2$?@z{RSlm)*\]z{𻰢ufuuuuuuXu jh+hChCJaJhThChB*CJaJph hThCh5B*CJaJphS5h+hChCJaJ hThCh5B*CJaJphS5hhCh56CJaJhhChCJaJ hThCh5B*CJaJph#hThe956B*CJaJph#hThCh56B*CJaJphhThChB*CJaJph"*]Z#wwAd & F0gd`&^gd4U & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&YZ"#vwvw@AŶp_PPhThChB*CJaJph *hTh;B*CJaJph& *hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph *hTh`&B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh`&B*CJaJphhThz^5>*B*phY hTh4U5B*CJaJphS5 hThCh5B*CJaJphS5h+hChCJaJAcd01l-.4`,-μ𭞼𭞭}rr}}hh{,CJaJ#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh{,B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hThCh6B*CJ]aJph hTh{,5B*CJaJph hThCh6B*CJaJphhThChB*CJaJph+d1.-$w !!`""#Y##I$$ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&-b#$emz{PQvw  ' '!{o]Nh>Yh>YB*CJaJph2#h>Yh>Y56B*CJaJph2h>Yhl:5CJaJh+hl:CJaJhTh;B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&6B*]phhl:h{,5CJaJ jh+h{,CJaJh+h{,56CJaJ jh+h{,5CJaJh+h{,5CJaJh{,CJaJh+h{,CJaJ'!!!!!!!'"_"`"""###!#'#X#Y#######'$H$I$O$$$$$$$$$$&%'%[%\%%%%%%%%& &I&P&c&d&&&&& ' 'd''߹ߪh>Yhl:B*CJaJph2& jh>Yh>Y5B*CJaJph2#h>Yh>Y56B*CJaJph2 h>Yh>Y5B*CJaJph2h>Yh>YB*CJaJph2>$$$'%\%%%d& '''0((E))+*e***6+~++$,,y-. & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&''''''''''''/(0(F(((D)E)F)))ϻϘwhYJ9JJ9 hh>Y5B*CJaJph2hh>YB*CJaJph2hh;B*CJaJph2hh`&B*CJaJph2#hh`&6B*CJ]aJph2hhl:B*CJaJph2 hhY5B*CJaJph2#h>Yhl:56B*CJaJph2& jh>Yhl:5B*CJaJph2 h>Yhl:5B*CJaJph2h>Yhl:B*CJaJph2 h>Yhl:B*CJH*aJph2)))**+*5*=*F*d*e********5+6+F+}+~++++#,$,7,F,,,,w-x-y--..òòòãp_ppp_ hhv5B*CJaJph2hhvB*CJaJph2#hhv56B*CJaJph2#hThj6B*CJ]aJphhThjB*CJaJph hThv6B*CJaJphhThvB*CJaJphhTh{,B*phhThvB*phhTh ;B*phhTh ;6B*ph%.#.$.Q.R....2/3/]/b///&0'000108090:0b0000000011b111L2M2^2_2a222$3%3<3=3T3U3a3333344߭& jhhv5B*CJaJph2 hhv5B*CJaJph2hhvB*CJaJph2# jhhvB*CJaJph2 hhv6B*CJaJph2 hhv5B*CJaJph2hhvB*CJaJph25.$.R..3//'010001M2_22=3U3334F44V55546 & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&44!4%4+404:4>4E4F4L4a444U5V5a5555553646a66677H7I7a777188898:8?8@8Y8Z8l8m88888888´¨¨¨¨¨´¨¨ jh+hvCJaJh+hvCJH*aJ jh+hv5CJaJh+hv5CJaJh+hv56CJaJh+hvCJaJ#hhv56B*CJaJph2 hhv5B*CJaJph2hhvB*CJaJph224667I77:8Z8m889(9z96:\::;;<<<<7=?== & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&899'9(9K9M9y9z995:6:;:[:\:c:y:::::::;;;;;<<<<<<<<<<<<6=7=>=?=====xh4hFB*CJaJph h4h4U6B*CJaJphh4h4UB*CJaJphhThz^5>*B*ph}1h4hCh5CJaJ jh+hvCJaJh+hv56CJaJh+hv5CJaJh+hvCJH*aJh+hvCJaJ/=======>>>q>r>>>>??&?*?E?F?Q?Z?i?j?o?????o@s@t@@@@@AAbAcAoAAAѿѮѿѮѿo#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhThFB*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph hTh4U6B*CJaJph#hTh4U5>*B*CJaJph}1hTh4UB*CJaJphh4h4UB*CJaJph h4h4U6B*CJaJph)==>>r>>?F?j???t@@@cAAA)BBB/CmCCDEE & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&AAA"B(B)BiBBBBB.C/CFCYCiClCmCCCCCiDDDEEiEEEFF F FiFѿ⭙zzkkYkkkkkkkYk# jhFhFB*CJaJph2hFhFB*CJaJph2hF5B*CJaJph2 hFhF5B*CJaJph2&hFhF56B*CJ]aJph2#hThF5>*B*CJaJph#hTh4U5>*B*CJaJph hTh4U6B*CJaJphhTh4UB*CJaJphhThF5>*B*ph"EFoFTGGH9H]H|HIII)JoJJ=KKKKKLLLLMN & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&iFnFoFSGTGiGGGHHHH H2H8H9HKH\H]H{H|HHHIIIIKIII"J'J(J)J,JKJnJoJsJtJuJvJ|JJJ*B*ph}1hFhF5CJaJhFCJaJh+hF56CJaJh+hFCJaJh+hF5CJaJ hThF5B*CJaJphDr7NGNNhOPPnPQQ`RhRoSSS^TTT/UxUVaVVV & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd J & FgdF & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&SSSSTTTTITUT]T^TTTTTTU.U/UwUxUUVVV`VaVVVVVVVWJWKWmWoWWWXXXòØ~rh+h J5CJaJh+h J56CJaJh+h JCJH*aJh+h JCJaJhTh JB*CJaJph hTh JB*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhThF5B*phY+VVKWXXX=YZ[\\\B]]]$^>^^^^^^__G` & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&XXGXIXXXXX$Y*Y^a^j^^^^^^^^^^^^^^________F`G`X`Y`````````aaaaaaañßññññ#h Jh J56B*CJaJph2# jh Jh JB*CJaJph2h Jh JB*CJaJph2 h Jh J5B*CJaJph2 h Jh JB*CJ]aJph2h Jh JB*ph2>G`Y```aa~bbrccVdde>e~eeeJff gggKhhJii j & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&aa}b~bbbbbbqcrcccccUdVddddee=e>e}e~eeeeeeffff#fIfJffffg ggggggJhKhVh]hhhIiJi]iii突響&h Jh J56B*CJ]aJph2 h Jh JB*CJ]aJph2& jh Jh J5B*CJaJph2# jh Jh JB*CJaJph2h Jh JB*CJaJph2 h Jh J5B*CJaJph2:i j j]jjjjjkkJkKkPktkukkkPljlklmmmmPmrmsmzmnn1n2nGnbnϽϰzn``hThF5B*]phh Jh J5CJaJh+h J56CJaJh+h JCJaJh+h J5CJaJ hTh J5B*CJaJphDrh Jh J5B*ph2# jh Jh JB*CJaJph2h Jh JB*CJaJph2 h Jh J5B*CJaJph2 h Jh JB*CJ]aJph2! jjjkKkukklmmsmn2ncnnnoooMpup'q{qq & F09Dgd`& & F09Dgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&bncnxnnnnnnoGooooooo ppGpLpMptpup&q'qGqzq{qqqqr]r^rrrrrĹnnbhh>!5CJaJ h>!h>!CJOJPJQJaJ# *h>!h>!CJOJPJQJaJhh J56CJaJhh J5CJaJ jhh JCJaJhh JCJaJhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhThFB*ph%qq^rr$ssstuuDwwwGxxxx"ymyz{{{ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&rrrrs#s$ssssssstttttttuu[u\uuuuuuv wCwDwuguu\\h>!h JCJaJh+h J56CJaJ jh+h JCJaJh+h J5CJaJh+h JCJaJ jhh J5CJaJhh J5CJaJhh JCJaJhTh;B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh`&B*CJaJphhTh JB*CJaJph DwwwwwwFxGxxxxxxxxxx!y"ylymy~yyyzzz{{{{{{źź~i\hThF5B*phY(jXhThTCJUaJmHnHuhxCJaJjh+h>!CJUaJh+h>!5CJaJ jh+h>!CJaJh+h>!CJaJhTh;B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&6B*]phh>!h>!5CJaJh>!h;CJaJh>!h`&CJaJ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{d|x||}}}}~~[~\~~~~ +,$%NO^_˾~m hTh35B*CJaJphYhTh3B*CJaJph h4h3B*CJH*aJph h4h36B*CJaJphh4h3B*CJaJphhThz^5B*phYhTh3B*phhTh35B*phYhTh>!5>*B*ph}1hThz^5>*B*ph}1*{{{{}~\~~,%O_f{+g & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd3 & Fgd3 & Fgd3 & F0gd`& & F0gd`&_efz{ŀ*+fgmŁ/045CDڂۂ56ijʃӃԃ >?fg 𿭿hTh;B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh`&B*CJaJph hTh36B*CJaJph hTh35B*CJaJphhTh3B*CJaJph905Dۂ6jԃ ?g Y Qi'v & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  /XY  PQ[hijzֈۈ&'uv Nʻʻʻʻʻʻʪʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻ#h3h3B*CJH*]aJph2#h3h35B*CJ]aJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2&h3h356B*CJ]aJph2 hTh35B*CJaJphY1 TocӋ&:Zَ"|? & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&NPSTno bckҋӋkŒ%&,9:KWk!YZ_`kɎˎ؎َ!"ϻ#h3h356B*CJaJph2& jh3h35B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h3B*CJH*aJph2B"78k{|Ïďŏ!>?IJJVW̑͑ޑ&'BGHIUZ͹͹͒~͒~&h3h356B*CJ]aJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2*jh3h30JB*CJUaJph2& jh3h35B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2# jh3h3B*CJaJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2+?W͑'IǒOp+F,cǖE & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&ƒǒ!NOop!*+EFJsu!%*+,ĕ!bcƖǖܼ˼˼˼˪˼܅s˼˼#h3h35B*CJ]aJph2&h3h356B*CJ]aJph2 h3h3B*CJH*aJph2#h3h356B*CJaJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2#h3h3B*CJH*]aJph2-DEiŘƘrsx9:gwz{Śƚ  $+QR͛Λ4Ͼ}}hTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph hTh3>*B*CJaJphhTh3B*CJaJph hTh35B*CJaJphY hTh35B*CJaJphh3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2-Ƙs:{ƚ RΛ5}0uΞi & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&45|}/0A./actu{}͞Ξ՞מķ|qiq]qQ|qqQ|qQhh35CJaJhh3CJH*aJhCJaJhh3CJaJh56CJaJh+h356CJaJh+h35CJaJh+h3CJaJhTh3B*phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phhTh`&B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJph hiabcQR_hŹŹŹŭpaOO#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh3B*CJaJph hTh3B*CJ]aJph(jhThTCJUaJmHnHuhxCJaJjh+h3CJUaJh3h35CJaJh+h35CJaJh+h3CJaJhh35CJaJhh3CJaJh56CJaJh+h356CJaJbR z BV/{Ҧ֧   & F0`gd`& & F0 L^ `Lgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&$a$gd3 & F0gd`&h  E_yz ABD)PUVi./z{ѦҦᴴxxxxxxx hTh36B*CJaJph h3h35B*CJaJph2hTh3B*CJaJphhTh3B*phhTh35B*phhThJB*CJaJph hTh`&>*B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph.Ҧէ֧  FGcMN֩שGH۪ܪ !8L٫ګbcۻۻۻۻۻۻۻەۻۻۻۻ۩& jh3h35B*CJaJph2#h3h35B*CJ]aJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2&h3h356B*CJ]aJph27 GNשHܪ!ګcجcʭ C & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&׬جbcɭʭ  BCį˯!")ȶȧȧȧȧȧȧ{j{ hTh35B*CJaJph hTh36B*CJaJphhTh3B*CJaJphh+h35CJaJh3h3B*CJaJph2#h3h35B*CJ]aJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2) jh3h35B*CJ]aJph2%űl>bqǶP`ҸX & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&ıűkl!=>JQabpqƶǶOP_`ѸҸWX+,lmۻۻۻ̩̩̩̩̩̩̩̩̩̩۩̩̩۩̩̩̩̩̩̩#h3h356B*CJaJph2 h3h3B*CJ]aJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2 h3h35B*CJaJph2&h3h356B*CJ]aJph2BX,m RûUüsŽ=Ծ5?G & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&m QR»ûTUV¼ü rsĽŽ<=ӾԾ45𺭠sbWWWWWbh4h&7CJaJ hTh&75B*CJaJph hTh&75B*CJaJphYhTh&7B*CJaJphhTh&75B*phYhThz^5B*phYhTh35B*phY#h&7h356B*CJaJph2# jh3h3B*CJaJph2#h3h356B*CJaJph2h3h3B*CJaJph2">?qvwFG  stMNqrt89kltCDt侲䦘 *h0h&75CJaJh&7h&75CJaJh+h&76CJaJh+h&756CJaJh+h&7CJH*aJh+h&75CJaJh+h&7CJaJ hTh&75B*CJaJph6 tNr9lD+ey[ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&*+ABhdehxyZ[h˹˹˹xxx𪛪𪛪f#h&7h&756B*CJaJph2 hTh&7B*CJ]aJph#hTh&76B*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph&hTh`&6>*B*CJ]aJph hTh&75B*CJaJphhTh&7B*CJaJph#-.?@JKOPTUVBMZeyz%&MN*+^_BCh&7h&756B*ph2hTh&7B*CJaJphh&7h&75CJaJ# jh&7h&7B*CJaJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2=.@KPz&N+_C  & F^gd&7 & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&-FG}mnrtyz9ɽ׽׽ɏ}׏l h&7h&76B*CJaJph2# jh&7h&7B*CJaJph2h&756B*CJaJph2 h&7h&7B*CJH*aJph2h&76B*CJaJph2h&7B*CJaJph2h&75B*CJaJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2h&7B*ph2*Gnl '^9 y & Fgd&7 & Fgd&7 & Fgd&7 & Fgd&7 & Fgd&79Dkl   &']^L]~89  & jh&7h&75B*CJaJph2 h&7h&7B*CJH*aJph2# jh&7h&7B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2?xy  klBGPQlrCDlpqxy޼޼޼͙͙ͪxxxxxxhTh&7B*CJaJph#h&7h&7B*CJH*]aJph2 h&7h&7B*CJ]aJph2#h&7h&75B*CJ]aJph2 h&7h&7B*CJH*aJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2#h&7h&756B*CJaJph2-lQDqyaw%J & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd&7 & Fgd&7 & Fgd&7X`avw$%IJ,-7IJ"#nouvጌ hTh&7>*B*CJaJph# jhTh&7B*CJaJph hTh&76B*CJaJphhTh&7B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph7-J#ovM$I%T[ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&LMN #$HIf{  $%MO޹޹޹޹wkkZH#h&7h&7B*CJH*]aJph2 h&7h&7B*CJ]aJph2h&7B*CJaJph2h&75B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2&h&7h&756B*CJ]aJph2hTh;B*CJaJphhTh;B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphOSTYZZ[).BD;<@AB]^pq)*̺ޙvޙޙޙޙޙޙޙޙ h&7h&7B*CJH*aJph2#h&7h&756B*CJaJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2#h&7h&7B*CJH*]aJph2# jh&7h&7B*CJaJph2#h&7h&75B*CJ]aJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2 h&7h&7B*CJ]aJph2.<^q*Q\e`p & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&PQEG[\de_`mnnopñznh&7h&75CJaJ!jh+h&70JCJUaJ& jh&7h&75B*CJaJph2# jh&7h&7B*CJaJph2#h&7h&756B*CJaJph2h+h&75CJaJ h&7h&7B*CJH*aJph2h&7h&7B*CJaJph2 h&7h&75B*CJaJph2*pqijпШ{{{{nnn___hTh-5B*CJphhh-CJPJaJ!h-h-B*CJPJaJphhTh&7B*CJphhh-6B*CJphhh-B*CJphjh-0JU hTh&75B*CJaJphS5h+h&75CJaJh&7h;CJaJh&7h`&6CJ]aJh&7h`&CJaJ jnZ%-hdP & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F9Dgd`& & F9Dgd`& & Fgd`&!LOmnYZk$%8@Jcxy,-gh!K\cdlrմմմhTh-6B*CJ]ph%hTh`&56B*CJ\]phhTh-B*CJphhTh-B*CJ]ph"hTh`&6B*CJ\]phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]ph4rOP`ms89:Amm|}%&'(45ŸŸŸŸ}l`h+h-5CJaJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrhTh-B*CJaJphhThB*CJaJphhTh-6B*CJ]phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phhTh-6B*CJphhTh-B*CJphhTh-B*CJ]ph"9}&(5-d\BU< & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&5I^aff,-cdf$'1[\fABfTUffʹʹʹʹʹʹ#h-h->*B*CJ]aJph2#h-h-5B*CJ]aJph2 h-h-B*CJ]aJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2h-h-B*CJaJph2h+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJ-;<c_`c&'cqr@ A E F G c     c      a b c     c     ޻ͬ hTh-5B*CJaJphDr hTh-6B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJaJph# jh-h-B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2h-h-B*CJaJph2#h-h-56B*CJaJph26<`'rA     b       0 & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&         , <   /0<[cMN$%#CIJKSTXYwUVݭ&hJh-56B*CJ]aJph2 jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-CJaJ>N%KYV)f-x & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&()IOS[xZ _ef,-fwx !"ཽ& jhJh-5B*CJaJph2 hJh->*B*CJaJph2#hJh-56B*CJaJph2hJh-B*CJaJph2 hJh-5B*CJaJph2B" Gq&;p"   !m!!" & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&"( FGM=GpqzļwhVhwEE hJh-B*CJ]aJph2#hJh-56B*CJaJph2hJh-B*CJaJph2 hJh-5B*CJaJph2&hJh-56B*CJ]aJph2h-h-CJaJh-h-5CJaJh-6CJaJh-CJaJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDr hJhJ5B*CJaJph2hJB*CJaJph2hJ5B*CJaJph2%&./:;op! " [ h l t        !!l!m!!!!""B"C"""ʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻʻ hJh->*B*CJaJph2#hJh-56B*CJaJph2# jhJh-B*CJaJph2hJh-B*CJaJph2 hJh-5B*CJaJph2&hJh-56B*CJ]aJph2 hJh-B*CJ]aJph24"C"""9#D###$$$$%3%8%~%&&&&&',((;)Y) & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&"""""""8#9#C#D########$$$$$$$$$$$$%%!%2%3%7%8%<%=%u%|%}%~%%%%%%ﯯ||h+h-56CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5CJaJ hJh-B*CJH*aJph2& jhJh-5B*CJaJph2hJh-B*CJaJph2 hJh-5B*CJaJph2/%&&&& &!&L&V&v&~&&&&&&&&&&&&'':'I'K'R''''''''+(,(0(1(K(S(~((((((:);)չչչչչՕ||hTh-5B*phYhh-5CJaJjh+h-CJUaJh-h-5CJaJh-6CJaJh+h-56CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5CJaJh-CJaJ0;)X)Y))))))))*"*G*H*Y******Y+f+g+++++++H,I,Y,i,n,o,,,,,----K-U-Y-\-]-----G.H.......//9/@/H/ jh+h-CJaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-56CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDr@Y)))H**g+++I,o,-]--H..// 000>11122 & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&H/q///////000 0 000H00000000=1>1B11111122?2222222?3[3\3c3znzznh-h-5CJaJh-CJaJh-5CJaJhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phhTh-5B*phh+hCJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJ+22\34@4455&6m6 77K88 9l9999 :m:::G;< & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  & F0`gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&c33334454?4@4|44444445(5)535?555%6&6+6,60676?6l6m6 7 73747?7777-8J8K8^8889 9-9ͳͳͳؔzzzhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]ph jh+h-5CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJh-h-5CJaJh-h-CJaJh-5CJaJh-CJaJ0-909k9l9999999 : :l:m::::::: ; ;;F;G;[;;< <<<x<ƹxxdxUUhTh;B*CJaJph&hTh`&6>*B*CJ]aJph hTh`&>*B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh-B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJphhTh-B*CJ]phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phx<{<<<<<=====X>Y>o>>>>>>>> ?!?d?e????M@N@_@r@s@t@@@@@@@AAAAArr jh+h-CJ]aJh+h->*CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJ hTh-5B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJaJph hTh-6B*CJaJph,<<==Y>>e??N@t@@AAB6BBCCDDDEZEEF9F & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&ABB5B6BBBCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDEE7E8EAEDEYEZEEEEEFFFFF8Fٰ{lh4h-B*CJaJphh+h-5>*CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJ]aJ jh+h-CJaJ jh+h-5CJ]aJ jh-h-CJ]aJh-CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJ]aJ(8F9FFFFF9GhGiGGGHH9H=H>HTHXHHHHHHHII9IIIIIIJJ/JJJKﲤ|l||_hTh`&B*CJphhTh-6B*CJ]phhTh-B*CJphhTh-5B*CJphh+h-5CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-CJaJ# jh4h-B*CJaJph h4h->*B*CJaJphh4h-B*CJaJph h4h-5B*CJaJph%9FFiG>HHIIIJJKoK}KKLLL4M NNvOOOUP*QQ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&KK/KnKoK|K}KKKLLL/LLLLL/M3M4MYMN N%N/NNNO OOOOuOvOO˼yyjYyjyyjyyyj hTh-B*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph hTh-5B*CJaJph hTh-5B*CJaJphYhTh-B*CJaJphhTh-5B*phYhTh-B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh;B*CJph"OOOOOPTPUPjPQ)Q*QQQQRRRRRRRRRRSSTSTTTTTTTTUUοοοο~m^^^m^mm^m^mh-h-B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2&h-h-56B*CJ]aJph2hTh-5B*phhTh-B*CJaJph hTh-B*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph hTh-5B*CJaJph$QRRRRTTTTUU$VJVVWWWsXYYZZ[[5\\] & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&UUUUUUVV#V$V;VIVJVVVVVWWWWWWWXrXsXYYYYYYZZZZZZ[[[[[[[4\5\\\\]]]]]]]^X^#h-h-56B*CJaJph2 h-h-B*CJ]aJph2 h-h->*B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2# jh-h-B*CJaJph2h-h-B*CJaJph2;]]Y^^=____&`n``` bc@ddeeeffgfg & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd>! & Fgd>! & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&X^Y^^^^<_=________%`&`m`n``````````a b bbȹȹȹȹȹ׬o``oO h>!h>!B*CJ]aJph2h>!h>!B*CJaJph2 h>!h>!5B*CJaJph2&h>!h>!56B*CJ]aJph2hTh>!5B*phYhTh>!B*phhTh>!6B*phh4h;B*CJaJphh4h`&B*CJaJphh4h>!B*CJaJphhThz^5B*phYhh-5CJaJb%b>b@bbbbccc?d@dDdddddd e eeeYe[eeeeeeeeeeof}ff۸۸۸۸۸p\p& *hh>!5B*CJ]aJph2# *hh>!B*CJ]aJph2) jh>!h>!5B*CJ]aJph2#h>!h>!5B*CJ]aJph2h>!h>!B*CJaJph2 h>!h>!5B*CJaJph2#h>!h>!B*CJH*]aJph2 h>!h>!B*CJ]aJph2&h>!h>!56B*CJ]aJph2#ffffffffgg#g+gegfgggggggg7h8hchhhyhzhhhh8i?i@iAiiiiii]j^jjkkƵ۵۵o۵۵&h>!h>!56B*CJ]aJph2# jh>!h>!B*CJaJph2h>!h>!B*CJaJph2 h>!h>!5B*CJaJph2 h>!h>!B*CJ]aJph2) jh>!h>!5B*CJ]aJph2#h>!h>!5B*CJ]aJph2# *hh>!5B*CJaJph2+fgg8hzhhAii^jk k kckkll|llmmnnn$oop & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&k k kk kbkckkkkllll0l{l|llllmm!mmmmmmmnnnnnn±ra hTh-5B*CJaJphDrhTh-B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJph hTh->*B*CJaJphhThz^5B*phY h-h>!5B*CJaJph2h>!h>!B*CJaJph2 h>!h>!5B*CJaJph2"nnnno#o$ooooooooppp!p"p#pOpPp`pfpvpwpppqq$q6qqqrKrLrrrrrrs=sJsbshsvs󔔅yyyh+h-CJ]aJh+h-56CJ]aJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrh+h-56CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJ jh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ/pPpwppqqLrrrws:ttuuuGvvv:www:xrxxy & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&vswssssst9t:tttuuuuuuuvFvGvJvRvvvvvvvvv2w9w:wwwwww9x:xqxrxxxxxxxy!yyyyyyyyy z¶¶¶h+h->*CJ]aJ jh+h-CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h->*CJaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ;yyz${{{M||||}~~0l ŀ1Ձ  & F0X^Xgd`&  & F0 ^ gd`&  & F0< ^< gd`&  & F0H ^H gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& zz&z(zazgzzzz#{${2{:{\{b{{{{{{L|M|o|x|||||||||}}}}~~~~~/0kl  ʿʿʿʿʱʿʿʿʿʿʿʿʿʿh+h-56CJaJh-h-5CJaJ!jh+h-0JCJUaJh+h-5>*CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJH*]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-56CJ]aJ4Āŀр01Y_΁ԁՁ+,YZfgvw01CDTX„لڄX߅OPX۵۵h+h->*CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJGՁ,Zgw1D„ڄP  & F0< ^< gd`&  & F0 ^ gd`& & F0  ^gd`&  & F0x^xgd`&  & F0X^Xgd`&  & F0 ^ gd`&X^etȆɆX_`pvׇ؇Lш҈()EFLW\͉̉LNJȊΊ .3Lu{ LxFMNލߍh+h-CJH*aJ jh+h-5CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-CJaJGPɆ`؇҈)F͉ȊNߍҎ & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  & F0x^xgd`&  & F0< ^< gd`&  & F0X^Xgd`&  & F0 ^ gd`&ߍFюҎƐ̐'֑]k ABoq󭹭󭟭󭟭󭟭󭟭لh+h-CJH*aJh+h-5>*CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-56CJ]aJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrh+h-CJaJ jh+h-5CJaJh+h-5CJaJ4BΓV{+Or Q}=i  & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&͓ΓUVz{ǔϔ*+NOqr  9OPQ36HV|}<=hi  ./JK[]ÚĚ01h+h->*CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-CJH*aJJ /KĚ1›Ûl- _mA & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`&gd- & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&›Ûipϝם۝kl˞͞,-FHߟ  ^_ߠl袢藗qqhTh`&6B*]phhTh;B*phhTh;5B*phhTh`&B*phhTh-5B*phh-6B*phh-B*phh-h-B*phhTh-5>*B*ph}1hThz^5>*B*ph}1hTh-B*phh-h-5CJaJ,lmߡߢ@AopߣLMҤ!"ҥͦҦӦ~ҧҨQҩө=O]lҪ֪ݪ>?[`«ƫҫõhTh-6B*]phhTh-B*]phhTh;B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&6B*]phhTh-B*phGApM"?$@߯ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&#$ìĬ?@0HR  ޯ߯/~vvhxCJaJjh+h-CJUaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h->*CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrhTh-B*phhTh;B*ph.=>?@AQV}ɱޱ }  <=rEFrѴҴ޵bcЙЧЧЧЧЧЧЧЧЧЧ(j" hThTCJUaJmHnHuh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJ(jhThTCJUaJmHnHuhxCJaJh+h-CJaJ(jChThTCJUaJmHnHujh+h-CJUaJ3A =FҴflr¸d & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&^gd-cdefklipqr¸cd89 паХХЙЙЙЙЙХХХpХ jh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrh+h-5CJaJjh+h-CJUaJ(jYhThTCJUaJmHnHu,9)3 ^Z'4["nvP= & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& '()567Kfǻѻ23EY  +,-]^YZ&'N\&(34-:Z[h۲h+h-CJH*aJ jh+h-5CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5>*CJaJh+h-5CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-CJaJ*CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ<=FOQ.AQx~%)*Q  Q7>KOQSTۥh+h->*CJaJ jh+h-CJaJ jh+h-5CJaJh+h-6CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJh+h-CJH*aJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJ61HocdW & Fgd`& & F0gd`&gd- & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&%'01GHMnoMbcdqĸzzkY#hTh-5>*B* CJaJph< h4h-B*CJaJphhTh-5>*B* ph< hTh-5>*B*ph}1hTh-B*phh+h-CJH*aJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ *h+h-5CJaJ *h+h-CJH*]aJ *h+h-56CJ]aJ *h+h-CJ]aJKWVWi%&9pxñp_PP_h-h-B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2&h-h-56B*CJ]aJph2hThB*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh-5>*B*ph}1hTh-5>*B*ph hTh-6B* CJaJph< hTh-B* CJaJph< W&1X< <k)Um{ & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  01WX;<JKǵǤǤǤǤǤooo^ h-h->*B*CJaJph2# jh-h-B*CJaJph2h-h-B*CJaJph2& jh-h-5B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2#h-h-B*CJH*]aJph2 h-h-B*CJ]aJph2) jh-h-5B*CJ]aJph2#h-h-5B*CJ]aJph2$   ;<Kjk()KTUZ[Klmxz{CκάΑshh-B*CJaJph2h-h;B*CJaJph2h-h`&B*CJaJph2h-B*CJaJph2h-5B*CJaJph2& jh-h-5B*CJaJph2 h-h-5B*CJaJph2 h-h->*B*CJaJph2h-h-B*CJaJph2&C CCjr*+24QRc޻ޭygyUD h-h-5B*CJaJph#h-h-5>*B*CJaJph#h-h->*B*CJH*aJph h-h->*B*CJaJphhTh-6B* ph< hTh-B* ph< hTh-B*phhTh-56B* ph< hTh-6B*CJaJph#hTh-5>*B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJaJph#hTh-56B*CJaJph+RF(Uc[2 & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&c+EFef{'(+23[f+ߨߨynchTh-B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&>*B*phh-h-5CJaJ*jh-h-0JB*CJUaJph& jh-h-5B*CJaJph h-h->*B*CJaJph# jh-h-B*CJaJph h-h-5B*CJaJphh-h-B*CJaJph&TUbc|Z[v~12()BI]b{  Ⱥԯh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJh-5CJaJh-h;CJaJh-h`&CJaJh-h`&6CJ]aJh-h-5CJaJh-CJaJhTh;B*phhTh`&>*B*phhTh`&B*ph42) ^dPFOF^}^gd- & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  "\]^cd~"CNOPcl"`j"EF"NOBC钊hxCJaJjh+h-CJUaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5CJ]aJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJ hTh-5B*CJaJphDrh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJ6CDEF]^|}HITV=>klVWtz6xyĹйййīйййĹййййй܉hxCJaJh+h-CJH*aJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-5>*CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJh+h-5CJaJjh+h-CJUaJ(j]hThTCJUaJmHnHu3>lW||*Y & F0gd`& & F0gd`&^gd- & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&yz{|INw{|~)*XY~дЉ{ jh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJ+jhThT5CJUaJmHnHuhx5CJaJ jh+h-5CJUaJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJjh+h-CJUaJ(j7ehThTCJUaJmHnHu023xz 8 9 ^ _   ο~~~~o^ hTh->*B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh-6>*B*CJaJphhThJB*CJaJph hTh-6B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJaJphhTh-5>*B*phh+h-CJH*aJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ$9 _  w < O      4 a    ^gd- & F0gd`&  & F0`gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&  v w      : ; < N O R b            3 4 ` a b      " # b   CٱـxxhJCJaJhJ5CJaJh-h-CJaJh-h-5CJaJh-6CJaJh-CJaJh-5CJaJ!jh+h-0JCJUaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJhTh-B*CJaJph*CTVWbb9:b:;s;;*7;ijst;YZhh-5CJaJ jh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-5>*CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-56CJ]aJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h->*CJaJ3 W:;jtZFk}- & F0gd`& & Fgd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`&;;EF6jk|},-6@ %6°°°°¡⏰€o€¡ hTh`&5B*CJaJphhThJB*CJaJph#hTh-5>*B*CJaJph}1hTh;B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh`&B*CJaJph hTh-6B*CJaJphhTh-B*CJaJphhTh-5>*B*ph}1'D"7'''(V(((#)w)&*V** +2++f,,^--.. & F0gd`& & F0gd`& & F0-DM gd`& & F0gd`& & F0gd`& ;=    CD u !l!!!"""#$%&'6'7'J']'t'̱̽vjahJ5CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-56CJ]aJhTB*CJaJph""" hTh-5B*CJaJph"""h-h-B*CJaJph"""h-h-CJ]aJhJ6CJOJQJ]aJh-6CJOJQJ]aJhTh;B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&6B*]ph!t'''''' ((((U(V(e(((((((((((")#)[)e)v)w))))))%*&*U*V****+ +1+2+N+S+Y+Z+|+++ǻǻ點ǻ jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h->*CJ]aJ jh+h-CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJhJCJaJhJh->*CJaJh+h-5CJaJh+h-CJaJ3+++++++e,f,,,,,,8-;-<-G-K-\-]-^-----...3......󟐟th\h-ha[5>*CJ h-h-5CJaJh+h->*CJ]aJh+h-5CJ]aJh+h-5>*CJ]aJh+h-CJ]aJh+h-56CJ]aJ#hTh-5B*CJ]aJphDr jh+h-CJaJh+h-56CJaJh+h-CJaJh+h-5CJaJ ......&///$0-007111422R3x333j4 & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&  & F^gd/[] $^a$gdzgdm & F0gd`&........%/&////////////#0$0ӴqcScccHchTh/[]B*phhTh/[]5>*B*H*ph}1hTh/[]5>*B*ph}1h/[]hz5>*B*CJ phh/[]h/[]B*H*ph jh/[]h/[]B*phh/[]B*phh/[]hm5>*B*CJ phh*>2harB*aJph"hThm5>*B*CJ H*ph/ThThm5>*B*CJ ph/Th*>2hm5>*CJ OJQJh-ha[5CJaJ$0,0-010000&1(16171g1m1s1u11111111111"2$23242Y2[22222222@3B3Q3R3w3x3y333ԺԫzzzhTh/[]B*phh/[]h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]>*CJaJh+h/[]5>*CJaJ jh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]5CJH*aJh+h/[]CJH*aJh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJaJh/[]CJaJhTh/[]5B*ph.33333i4j4455:5;5555555555 6666E6G6q6r66667777/7077Ϳʹʹʹtih/[]h`&CJaJh/[]h`&6CJ]aJ h/[]h`&56>*CJ]aJh/[]5CJaJh/[]h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJH*aJh+h/[]CJaJh+h/[]5CJH*aJh+h/[]5CJaJhTh/[]B*phhTh/[]>*B*phhTh/[]5>*B*ph}1&j45;5555r6777y8j99b:;X;;`< ==d>>A? & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&777777x8y8888X9Z9h9i9j9|9~9999999a:b:k:p:q::::::;;P;R;W;X;;;;;;;;N<ǻǻǯǯxǯǻǯǻǯǻǯǯ jh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]>*CJ]aJh+h/[]CJH*]aJh+h/[]CJ]aJh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJH*aJh+h/[]CJaJ jh/[]h/[]CJaJh/[]CJaJh/[]h;CJaJh/[]6CJ\]aJ/N<P<_<`<o<p<w<x<<< = =?=A=======2>4>c>d>>>>@?A?Q?W?u?v?????y@z@{@|@}@@A˽薖薇n j*CJ]aJh/[]h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJaJh+h/[]CJH*aJ+A?v??"A#AABB3CD{EEFGsGGGHHLII J(JVK & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&^gd/[]$a$gd/[] & Fgd`&AA A!A"A#AAAA~BBBBBBBCC2C3CLCMC`CCCCKDLDDDDȽȽȽȽ{sjs\sss jh/[]h/[]CJaJh/[]6CJaJh/[]CJaJh/[]h`&CJaJh/[]h`&6CJ]aJ h/[]h`&56>*CJ]aJh/[]h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJH*aJh+h/[]CJaJh+h/[]5CJaJh/[]h/[]CJaJ j h`thTUmHnHujh/[]h/[]CJUaJDDzE{EEEEEEEEFFPFRF`FeFFFFFFFGGGG'G(G*Gӻs_PhTh/[]B*CJaJph& jhTh/[]5B*CJaJph hTh/[]5B*CJaJphh+h/[]CJH*]aJh+h/[]5CJ]aJh+h/[]56CJ]aJh+h/[]CJ]aJh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJH*aJh+h/[]CJaJh/[]h/[]CJaJh/[]CJ]aJh/[]h/[]6CJ]aJ*G,GrGsGGGGGGGGGGHH3H5HHHHHI I5IDIFIKILIOIUIWIIIIIJ J$J%J&J'J(J5JJJJJ5KUKVKKKKK L LLLϭϭϭ# jhTh/[]B*CJaJph hTh/[]5B*CJaJph hTh/[]>*B*CJaJph hTh/[]5B*CJaJphDrhTh/[]B*CJaJph hTh/[]B*CJH*aJph9VKK LLLLL"M^MMMNVNuNNNO^PPRR & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&p^pgd/[]@ ^@ gd/[] & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&LLLLLLLLLLLLL!M"MZM\M]M^MMMMMMNNUNVNtNuNNNNNNOO±‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘rreeehTh/[]B*CJphhTh/[]5>*B*ph}1 hTh/[]B*CJH*aJphhTh/[]B*CJaJph!jh+h/[]0JCJUaJ hTh/[]5B*CJaJph hTh/[]5B*CJaJphDr(jp hThTCJUaJmHnHuhxCJaJjh+h/[]CJUaJ$OOOO]P^PoPPPPQRRRRRRRRTSUScSSSSSXTYT{TTTTTUU#U$UUUUUUUɹɏwkwkwkh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJaJhTh/[]>*B*phhTh/[]56>*B*phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phhTh/[]B*CJphhTh/[]>*B*CJphhThTB*CJphhThA*B*CJph*RRUSSYTTU$UUUV:VVWJWWWW2XXXYYY & F gd`& & F gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&UUVV%V-V9V:VVVVVVVWWBWIWJWWWWWWWWXX1X2XXXXXXXwew#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph hTh/[]B*CJH*aJphhTh/[]B*CJaJphhTh/[]B*ph!hTh/[]56>*B*]phh/[]h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]>*CJaJh+h/[]5CJaJh+h/[]CJaJ#XYY1YHYOYYYYYYYZ#ZAZCZvZwZZZZZ[ [#[B[C[V[l[m[[[\\\\#\L\ʿzn` jh+hA*CJaJh+hA*CJH*aJh+hA*CJH*]aJh+hA*CJ]aJ jh+hA*5CJ]aJh+hA*5CJ]aJh+hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJaJhThA*CJaJhThA*5CJaJhThA*56CJ]aJhThA*B*CJaJph%YwZ [m[[\M\x\\\1]];^^^^Q_C```ca & F!gd`& & F!gd`& & F!gd`& & F!gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F gd`& & F gd`& & F gd`&L\M\_\a\w\x\\\\\\\\ ]0]1]y]z]]]]]]] ^:^;^P^^^^^^^^跫ufYYYYuhThA*B*CJphhThA*>*B*CJphhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]phhThA*5CJaJhThA*CJH*aJhThA*CJaJh+hA*>*CJaJ jh+hA*CJaJh+hA*CJH*aJh+hA*CJaJh+hA*5CJaJ"^^ _P_Q_V_B`C`V```````VabacaaaaaaaabbKbsbubbbbbbbb+c-cKcOcPcccccKdRdSddddd¶ª¶¶¶¶¶¶ª¶¶ª¶¶¶¶žhThA*B*CJphhA*hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJH*aJh+hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJaJh+hA*56CJaJhThA*B*phhTh`&B*phhTh`&6B*]ph4caaabbbPccSddd9eCeeexffggg*hh & F"gd`& & F"gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F!gd`& & F!gd`& & F!gd`&dd8e9eBeCeeeeef fCfwfxffffffffCggggggggg)h*h=hChKhhhhhhhi$i%i&iiiiiǼ}h+hA*CJH*aJh+hA*5>*CJaJh+hA*56CJaJh+hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJaJhThA*B*phhThA*5>*B*phhThA*B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh`&6B*CJ]ph1hh&iiiijDjjjklWlllLmommnoo2pppqPr & F"gd`& & F"gd`& & F"gd`& & F"gd`& & F"gd`&iiiijjjj jCjDjjjjjjkkkll8lVlWl}lllllllllllmmKmLmnmom|mmmmmm n+nnļh+hA*>*CJaJhA*h;CJaJhA*h`&6CJ]aJhA*h`&CJaJhA*CJaJhA*hA*CJaJhA*hA*5CJaJ jh+hA*CJaJh+hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJaJ1nnnnnooooooooo1p2ppppppqqqq rr'r)rOrPrVr|rrrrrssۗr hA*hA*5B*CJaJph2&hA*hA*56B*CJ]aJph2#hA*hA*56B*CJaJph2h+hA*>*CJaJh+hA*CJH*aJ jh+hA*CJaJh+hA*6CJaJh+hA*5CJaJh+hA*CJaJh+hA*56CJaJ&Prrtt#umuuvw+xMxxxygyyy0zZzzz & F%gd`& & F%gd`&  & F$8^8gd`&  & F$h^hgd`& & Fgd`& & F"gd`& & F"gd`& & F"gd`&sstt-t3tttt"u#u(u)u9uBulumuuuvuwuuuuuuuwvvvHwJwwwwwwwww x)x*x+xLxMxzzhThar5>*B*ph}1 h*B*CJaJph2 hA*hA*B*CJH*aJph2# jhA*hA*B*CJaJph2#hA*hA*56B*CJaJph2 hA*hA*5B*CJaJph2hA*hA*B*CJaJph2+Mxvxwxzxxxxxxyyfygysyyyyyy/z0zYzZzszzzzzzzzb{c{w{{{{{(|)|9|w|x|||||}f}g}z}}䲲hTh;B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh B*CJaJph h h 6B*CJaJph#h h 6B*CJ]aJphh h B*CJaJphh*CJaJh+h >*CJaJhTh B*CJaJphhTh`&B*CJaJph;Ɓ epqeghƃ !"QcƄڄۄOPۅ܅%&:W·xxfxxxxxxxx# jh h B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2#h h 56B*CJaJph2hTh B*CJphhTh B*phhTh 5B* ph< h h 5CJaJh+h 56CJaJh+h 5CJaJh+h CJaJ(P܅&ۆ5_r'nU-aE & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&  & F ^ gd`&Wنچۆ 45^_+-acÈňqrΉ҉&'Zmn߳n h h >*B*CJaJph2h h;CJaJh h`&CJaJ)hTh B*CJ0KHOJQJaJ0phh 6CJaJh CJaJ#h h 56B*CJaJph2# jh h B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2+nstuTUe,-W_`aӌDEJo^^ h h B*CJ]aJph2#h h 5B*CJ]aJph2&h h 56B*CJ]aJph2h h`&6CJ]aJh h;CJaJh h`&CJaJh CJaJh h CJaJh h B*CJaJph2& jh h 5B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2#34]abeiҎd.dͼͼͼޅsͨa#h h 5B*CJ]aJph2#h h 56B*CJaJph2 h h B*CJH*aJph2#h h >*B*CJ]aJph2&h h 56B*CJ]aJph2 h h B*CJ]aJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2# jh h B*CJaJph24bBܓ]t '9cǙ & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`&  '==ABI 4;LNʓϓۓܓݓٶ٤ٶٶَzٶkZkkk h h >*B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2&h h 5>*B*CJ]aJph2*jh h 0JB*CJUaJph2#h h >*B*CJ]aJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2#h h B*CJH*]aJph2 h h B*CJ]aJph2) jh h 5B*CJ]aJph2"ݓߓ\]sty”ߔ  OVߕ&';Qߖ)ൣzfT#h h 56B*CJaJph2&h h 56B*CJ]aJph2h;B*CJaJph2h h`&B*CJaJph2h 6B*CJaJph2# jh h B*CJaJph2h B*CJaJph2h 5B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2 h h B*CJH*aJph2)789RTϗїSTUTbcƙǙ+,Az{ߚ  AuvƛǛ9:ARZ[྾#h h 56B*CJaJph2# jh h B*CJaJph2 h h B*CJH*aJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2 h h >*B*CJaJph2:,{vǛ[:XНIkdFvؠ' & F#gd`& & F$gd`& & F$gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`&[np29:WX\cpϝНHIjkpcdkpñ~oooo```````O``` hTh 6B*CJaJphhTh B*CJaJphhTh;B*CJaJph#hTh`&6B*CJ]aJphhTh`&B*CJaJph#h h 5>*B*CJaJph2#hTh 5>*B*CJaJph h h 5B*CJaJph2h 6B*CJaJph2 h h B*CJH*aJph2h B*CJaJph2EFMcepuv}נؠ&'9OšơޡOfgnvɢʢ𺩚wwwee#h h 5B*CJ]aJph2#h h B*CJH*]aJph2 h h B*CJ]aJph2h h B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2&h h 56B*CJ]aJph2 hTh B*CJH*aJph hTh 6B*CJaJphhTh B*CJaJph''ơgʢܣ%TKv(Fiݦ#Gר & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`&KOaۣܣ$%STѤJKuv'(EF[hiܦݦ"#,:FG֨ר =>yzש h h B*CJ\aJph2#h h 5>*B*CJaJph2 h h >*B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2Dר>zةJѪ9ڬ"ZmӮ߮k̯&Dݱ & Fgd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`& & F#gd`&שةIJSɪЪѪ89٬ڬ!"YZ()lmstҮӮۮܮݮޮ߮jk˯̯%&CD# jh h B*CJaJph2#h h 56B*CJaJph2 h h >*B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2 h h 5B*CJaJph2CDܱݱڲ۲"#;RSճֳ ӴIͿxxxk^Nk^NkkhTh`&6B*CJ]phhTh;B*CJphhTh`&B*CJphhTh*B*CJphhTh*B*phhThar5>*B*ph}1 h h 5B*CJaJph2#h h 56B*CJaJph2h h B*CJaJph2۲#SֳJ\(}]1̹Pd & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & F&gd`&IJ[\t'(|}\]e0179;Ae˹̹OPcd89XYdôh*B*CJaJph2& jh*B*ph jhTh*B*ph}1 h*B*CJ]aJph2 hL}~&'~bcwwwIP`aejvw'̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽#h*B*CJaJph2 h*B*CJaJph27~'cau [$ & Fgd`&  & F^gd`&  & FN ^N gd`&  & F ^ gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&  & FN ^N gd`&'(tuz  uZ[nuʹۧۧۧʓۂp_ h*B*CJaJph2 h*B*CJaJph2&h*B*ph}1hTh?nGHhopv󸪸󸸞܃܃vvhTh*B*ph}1h*B*phhTh*CJaJ0)*IJ QRefGHf|}   fuv鵵h+h*CJaJh+h*CJaJh+h*CJ]aJ jh+h*B*CJaJph2h*CJaJh*CJ]aJ.!W7*z\A9 & F)gd`& & F)gd`& & F)gd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&.67)*.yz..[\/0?޻Ͱsͤe jh+h*CJaJh*CJ]aJh+h*B*CJaJph2'?@AI[l89NV      柍||kY|kJh*CJaJh+h*CJaJh+h s   = E A   F[ & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`& & Fgd`&      > ?        = > r s        < = D E H ^ _ @ A ｨxpbpx jh*CJaJh+h*CJaJh+h*CJ]aJh+h*CJaJh+h*CJaJh*CJaJh^R7h*CJaJh*B*ph}1h*CJaJh Wh*B*phhTh*B*phhTh*B*ph)((((((()))))))))K*L*W*c*x*******++e+f++++++++++4,5,:,ѿ}}}}k}#h*B*CJH*aJph2 h*B*CJaJph2 h/U/V/W///ݻݻݩݝݩ݉ݻ{mh*CJaJ jh5h6N6P6k666666677k7p7q777777777777788G8H8I8N8# jh*B*CJaJph2 h667q77I8 969:z::";;;F<u<<<T==>@ & F,gd`& & F,gd`& & F,gd`& & F,gd`& & F,gd`& & F,gd`&N8O8P88888 9 95969P9i9:::::@:P:y:z:::::̻۪xgSgxgggA#h*B*CJ]aJph2& jh*B*CJaJph2h>N>P>{>>>>̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽wkh!Sh*B*CJ]aJph2 h>>?w@@@@AA.A4APAQAAAAAAAAA'B(B0B6BBBBBBCCCCCCCCCD!DQDRD[DbDDDۯۯۯۯۯۯ쯯̋ۯۯyۯ#h*B*CJ]aJph2#h*B*CJaJph2# jh*CJ]aJh Mh*B*CJaJph2 h*CJ h*>2hm5>*CJ H*h*>2hm5>*CJ h*CJaJh5h*CJaJh2h*CJaJh*CJaJhYzh*CJaJh;`Ghh*CJaJ jhj>hh*B*CJaJph2_ `v`w````` aDaEajakaaa b*b+b,b@bSbbbbbbb c+c-c@cAccccccȫssghx< h*CJaJh+hh*CJaJ jh6hhhhhhh>i\i]iliiij>j\j]jjjjkk>kkkkll+l>llllmmm>mjmkmmmmmɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾ|h>*CJaJhCJaJh+h5CJaJh+h56CJ]aJhThCJaJhTh;CJaJhTh`&CJaJhTh`&6CJ]aJ h5aJh*aJhh5>*aJh6hssDtt2uuuMvv & F.gd`& & F.gd`& & F.gd`& & F.gd`&mmmmmmnnnn'nnnnnn'ocodooop p p'p,pCpppp'q2q3qAqBq~qqqqqqq'rRrSrh56CJaJhvhCJaJh>*CJaJhh5CJaJhvh5CJaJh+h5CJaJh5CJaJh>*CJ]aJhCJ]aJhah5CJaJh hCJH*aJhCJaJ,Srdryr|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrss=s>sIsMssssssssssstܾܤvjܾh hCJH*aJh56CJ]aJh5CJ]aJh hCJH*]aJhCJ]aJh h5CJaJh h5CJH*aJh5CJaJh>*CJaJh h>*CJaJhCJaJh+h5CJaJh+h56CJ]aJ$ttBtCtDtIttt+u-u1u2u7u8uIuTu^uuuuuuuuuuuuuFvHvIvLvMvvvvvw軦vvvjhT.h5CJaJhehCJH*aJheh5CJaJh>*CJaJ jhkh5CJaJh5CJaJhkhCJH*aJhkh5CJaJh56CJaJh+h5CJaJjh0JUhCJaJ jh h5CJaJ&wwwwwwwwwwwwwww#w$w%w&w'w(w.w/w0w1w2w3w4w5w6wBwwwxxx,x-xJxKxxxx-y0y1y2yaycyyyyzzz-zzzzӶӮhThqB*phDrhhqB*H*phhqB*phha;hqH*jhq0JUhq0JmHnHuhq hq0Jjhq0JUhxjhxUhThm5CJaJ:vwwwwwwwww%w&w'w2w3w4w5wxx-xKxxx1y2y & F gd`&gdho &`#$gdm|gd*>2 & F.gd`&2yyzzzzzzz||r|||}}}}=~>~S~&'jkgd3gd/* & F gd`&gd<+gdhozzzzzz{'{,{-{1{;{T{V{{|||-|D|q|r|s|{|||}|||}}}}}-}}}}*~;~<~=~>~R~S~T~%&'ijkʸʮhTh3B*phDrh4h3B*phh3jh30JUhhqB*ph jhqhqhqmHnHujhq0JUhThqB*phDrhqB*phh2hqB*ph9NOPǀȀɀЀрҀ}~ہ܁݁abc#$klm;<=rstܮ jhxHh-B*phhTh-B*phDrh-B*phhxHh-B*phh-h-CJOJQJaJjh-0JUh&7hTh&7B*phDrjh&70JU=OPȀрҀ~܁bc$lm<s & Fgd`&gd-gd&7tyz{ '()GHwx{|   U_ȈӈԈՈֈ  #$KLMɉʉ $@Kٵεjh 0JUhTh/[]B*phDrjh/[]0JUhvVh-B*ph jh^.h-B*phh^.h-B*phh-B*phjh-0JUh- hTh-B*mHnHphDru6sz()Hx Ոֈ $LM*gop & F'gd`&gdD@=6A$m?3!sG dxePݺ u 0 Np!h%@p6  !@pw]zWCPC@4 `|-%y^" P?)9g7"`yTdXl\ht{%gh@ ]`fy^RX۹A]G;7 AsusأyeA]yE"H%1.#ˮT`#./{H 1N/Q1|\(YkV\@#Wy4R]HE˜matwّ [t5"hRWJCc62TĪ8O;Ǫoilc]d| MML =FkCI3m'WHB HӢFN҈ RQ"dNfaBGIqG\38Gqχ|*FF %4X:Zc8yX 3wX[*xCh8DPdiPi!Y\mLc4~ V&|+32y896ߺYR ikzU:1, &8D0Bx%l+q{A5θىߞ7 U݂bu+2բ+3ԫTV%_kc.;upg=%ۜllE 3-UVeD9 Q9uf* =AϋB%v zSB2fM֒|Dv EsN|@M%|+)CQ v(+>`|27Usq&ֲuU%D[@>,} K;U=ݫ,_#=R% K#0)RVn}C^"m"K ZO0IRqM3|,7[ ɽҿǕ&ƔTBX:s(Y=UxcK0'9\`NÕkJ)d$gԥnmT%߇І2V8b2w:˽y1mv-"uIh}EOƯ[:gN#OICro2|iE@Z,ѵ,L7Yj9Ht$ՑvĖ؀!URq'b];4M̓QmTOeI1ΓL5x~VFvQ -qe›c7vl+a}y 3]( s߇Av/Pa*2Ƀ:Y\%#T^6d,pSȾH+ֆ>iKy㎕yajF'Օ5m)< ¶<0:]$װv_ik727&tF`B#XH֞s'5SZfjzCPjm nt^Zx3}ia>I_Khrv&*@ÏyUI5_b.̄r37౮~چtuVK(ATYp5EFŒ[D<:p?KgG˧uLTڂW YI8F)~uWf/<ߚC\yal1=NwϹDHO7#=tIuIP*WFsXQe>1Qro]˖ iu0{ڿ};/rtÖǑSV㔯R~նxNu\ vQyɓfzSHѿٯKj]wҩ.9EV| J;ÏQO2BC`*28H`94`i}I!DZ# Act2)W,Iv0|aFS M".w$RaJݗg'7@zջU / ߃dHelR/ {aYPi2ȋa皸] kL#̬RL8n#&H}ԄB g᪀Ul5R~1Tt W3r*@v@s R LMLBOѓKo' PU4?i!7$aCU%(`]Yb1UݯB5=MKU 5|* <>d:>Ehc 7I$N|h$߹FњεQ78)b1},Dv %y4*=FWl0\ ٲZbPDɌ`>dhnz(bDbé,Sd,.-fz`[ Jb壾#ð@%"Pzxef NKS>{EHKkshh0{WL}EǃZǬmhD3Ud2"ǏԥbigKhٔGbmUTΖ62;3Lư^⡉ b:ٮ&OD*"&|11#Ht]{ۄF6g2 'پu$] qB+Xp賓ԡQHF| Zu9Ԝ %C>~ s4Ґb&Vp;=09)sH2m?d5+7Uh`A}W!9=˳ 4^pbzWm7U@WEޑֈ lmb1In>ʜvt%1K~ |SmQ<-K,䰡˅oyx2I!6g.t A*d|ۃ>fv#sy.J1&"J^3Ŧ7!elD~x]Q➫ݬ8[Jh&zL1?lK N'9.3ʺ%q}V}py{Bw1×FS9wrSaPEbXol;^_)]imk# [3}/U>P qrBeOx1g# D͹L`~TKX8=(/SW++7q=IIRu =e\ݷlBW+n- 8dW4%~?a(AnD6h ;9`o;LZ#r(:Ik;T^g\U,g_$?w+ !4&qӔK뎼l:emr1*8dt:Ja#`ƯO'L,j.%5RFR&#E7a~ *qv&BHk&JODn\mVES̗w}8;g\0/Я3uO7.檞jl_n'>e9UQ4@Qmw:f?k,N(sm4"hܑCvJZp[_y⟺ƓyivE=>Dd^m1: "F.\3FRo[!o dDɯKì}APEIt52wlJY!p&j6s,CyA@л\؏ b9\6:M%dp ,9'nEEZ.Xx w_H \)֧l;rŏ Fh̰{pO{G)ｸ3ٔ˕YcW5Loslu"$lcNT+j3\BZAvגW !ROz ]:#2DE=^r{*⃘eZ?YTiHs`5˭Q}6L<1TZN=MJ9M1 buo:ϹTΆF;onO2pJ{ ך[ < 9٪~8νy󭃝(OA<¾ίU\ OfLˤٕKW~oT.(񳤮{oDjF"^e>X* :Gևhapm2i> DB)bO܎!R =D쉟%joPŗIW0?[L;|>H8{ bkTŇفi05>l KG+RBU3@}nQ|CȈ(o }OKew:8iRؘd؋|S0^}Zbi{YESk*Z- l+vi>l"ә2XE.A άX [^rmƄ͑*j~SYNW3%E2) oi4Gp !Nqxɡеٖ=k"@(qYRͱnKW/n%BOoD;>KGP*|-Ί>i$l>,]슴Tz_Hm +p=`q&a6<"S6,.%pо\}oO-z J=\OmͻC޳>%B'Mi2bsqVJ4 3\C2̂*8ѐiO.P@ؕv'U م?c<7i^! m!.wKaqL5`gwH= c\LUfԔ`𓠹ܕԖ"YѲɨԛQ WRB)E80T[}"({502!1x͏u0>`?[?s@NP _Wouutw1y^ttp{~ D ' s=#8i@݀dP/7!]E C%]@¹r٥ nϠ/ qĕ 'gȳ Ϯ?d+ٳOhf϶h" owdwtŽ)TWO_5lw?4?Ow]wx+] amUHh?+SSaX_8 8)(K) z!˨m  1G2C=QRXE=90ca\3@>M.;Op+xb8,U Dȵ}pzzl![y"K*u?O &=+DQG8|$CͯYlwY2 G;;EgjA4bA/˂w6M 'E~(.S0+F*Ul; 1Rδw.zc{V̜ԣ8v^(c4}UAMǏƒ>wZ'llJ6B%^&Em{IlcR8}2mB=};W[6m 0owڂD% R##XcW8O֣C=,r:NBԶPC"ZBuBgVyIg[BThD}qhVU]c9}n Vi46/1b]YH VBrѸ8Y1~!8)lb_Ehy8`'t8rNL'tZX@kc|8BtY2=oIqU~|>8qP)1Spy+7f\q 7_n ΋ʑhi5lh A 6ġb]*0vj_E\Z⇲|d:fôNyZsJ;$+,u}*"6y/՗N%i.3Ո-ވ_^KK#Z;Of[8TN:#?4444xO5!0OLlzTb{NtWx7wNv o0lon#us_sE'FDǞqo6-~~ʘ|.&".9\Qq&ܾ\edcbn"fd3{,ˈ}nusOEϮn"ii;) i*w?ICPF@z=ކV[M yU *Z/  4<%Tu؍>剨Tv@:;ǁ 3J:LM V^WL0}u:YUGf% )iO4nðݴqW W/V  +μaF!pЈEuJQ}nmBo@ͺY2? e喱KK;Y8+ j̓%owo{I:2/}͔\Jw 1Y]&W]٢nGb $$nH&熄+#?cD^{W_=ABq7Ty'i4_(%5xSݛnÿ7kzlX4oYUƯDghqӜrF(@w5]z,GV(Pr;~1aX|1=TdP'xLPXضxPe؜Kia_X+EF]f;IwņꨣAǐmiO֮܅pG7c'J s*Пr&u0 ), ұ50܋m tltL FoK8)_i{Yb F)}[h54 ڧ9藜sKa)Dot,a L #9}X 6~Ȍ ;6 :V0(1Q˟y9'+.1{K{TLFؕYI=p\]__^^]\\_@gPl_^Y]Z^Y\Z^X\_s s33sS3S3S3''&ǾOO}62:4<:mdphx`[෾}}_}򵻧_:{:>wvutwwu4756ֆ溆OMuu 5kj*?UVVTՔWVUTWWU|,(//XW13'/3;7#+7=3'-#;-#+5=3%-CjFrjzrJZ҇Ԅ'$'žOK}>2:."*6"*&<2:,":4<*4<2$,"84"($<($,084 (?0? / ?/7bekiec223YYhkiijjhhjkhkkiSUWyVEU;%eE Jo(+~FNN^V ,-))%!@B||<@ 7'';';++3+,stiihi^QQ|E񒒜%0/OoAw(ÿQF{]qgt_Grʴz3ss\_WCVb;v)770`W § oM7NN{W~*lZSZ83s~ߥ?''a1;۽de'&dv_e6{`c՟F2/X:FȬ, o3@3 +dQI74]ջفW QXJVBY_w=lh?%lBF?d&WCEƂ%^X~';;08aW1QQب}ФFloB8ͽȋL Qf]H@H@zeepe֠ԔX(LOOI6ҮgI΁?6co]٥SgXY^^:t_y<$RfTKF!qq`MՍϼV@u=i`uRe=" <DD$~VuͲwUiD#H[:|M<_z\]Hw'ݾV6|Ʉ?A@9cbj,=z56l*A4MWxmG)@wk m[G-L͡DlkM lek,]Zsۖtu<5ĵ5,p9s]?zh'& nB}Q4#fΪC^!K&p|ɭa^©=k!.|' q cf=2C9I,l޴ 6cm<*n w)'C ɆSRMh%9 Y яFD48LXήFMw _nauIpβ8E)O&wD8,s6"G#rP"qCy@$-VBPm __ڏ(wjwo  -{}Һ:Ů`N }_bĴE '\Лsd`z'If(Y 6+1㱘 Z"QA考*.g\I ֬kNhmy: /C@Dd(uQ1}A`}/ og[|zfCT==4.+AsMXf`W+L+Λ%b/JT}LuxzϤvji H1X{ b:=n eY&s]Wr r ƂzMP^*J&+Ҭ)JtO3Hڰ)ۯ3Y;·Nli_4SP8'A SS\vS\`7ae(Ãيp>KFas*հrc`>X&dfT\| Zdzg}uқ0l NHjN_t/cpd+dR"ծ#DϡfstuvO | &&%GM):ZhEQЮ1-;1s TWIX"!8']=Nݗc:\D%fV*JMzGf`68y I}[|o2P,!v?M fF9 F$y2%W[7]N&QŌ~ʯbsuTho0,Mޡ?)IEzWZn.3+3x*21T{ב gI8\Q2U6qbaHje78+ ,bW^ծۂKZzg97d*3lAZ/I\k좴wzhPu Fkg[-5W)QP+oN~LP?:%o8.厽AH`޲?Vf3|&@Y4M Iapx'@wVzUV܉X-Ks(~h!PWV\cZ@)^:Ni:Zܛ;:`goӻӯ(*G1ij@Ieu"ndi_Ⱦ*%Ca4%£!#eXzq}z_@oAqNF٠!}_%%HHRKvu *iz'wQ'YWPJLSח5΀T1P`\҃3}?wچLfA} ɨK̿-#]2g1V;7.xz"`@hMq&h-[qp!l"-^/7f$gIAƈ/8r˜YZՒAʚHUW|CӁhrmGDYĹY֕lsC]J tK!X",Gdz`i"BNѓ}[t&==ޓ Sy#VNߔIIܜՙ,Cqa4u@8\PhAƝ -:'Z D88lìe ԃǁ}s*~e^%xNq pLKn"zixs&ҙ] ۧиj?*sz;#5MVCBVj9I]24<uixsVZRgK7y9!j">bS;hF G@fCP$MVTVFe͠?Ӄb(!G6'ߢm} $u00_š<}F 7$m¸9iү F(F4ދﮉhް@>ڇMj#wwB5έ9[ydiaaET8Hk_ODQr Uh AA޶:[%; ̳K_&R_lθtu!Ԉ^!1M(e<@`&hcDuޥtf3أΑHiϽىG|? ** ִE3n7 s~c]+*{ t>Kܧ;d*oᄫGs+ ,IRdz \6 z6!ؾE&L&&xE4ZPzw0V%zj!gtЫ-Uyc<EdrjHs6hЄF(.9Cl3L0LzRtm [:8A8G˃gpɫU \EѺHKi=ᆸl;q׮K((:8>~-4&ZyW,L}R6ܪMt1.ugTUIgӧ7yTހ[;MPk̒x/ =frfK|Y0R!&~\C>;VgQ[yC g|(82E{vʀ@H7O?N DW?Up@z2ʟ_B sx=nTnz- h7NHbtse3ԓw?(x*հY_ĥ WT)mwRg zCE1pJ}`9 ""goh?'2UPuFk^[~!9*ˍլԝ9f 2hq5L9zPiQe^8V$/&uhtR4./њfEPթoLT9OC!ߣjngάE$ݨw 8Rq>3kj^zJiA"=Q)))ߒK.,k '*|lK*[k? JƸI's0=՟/32W>QA/~2|NH A qaf7x^v/%3pI&"EPS+4MtqLz.?-IqA9ѥFFѨ Җ]n"YLM]x+uK¬ܳͼ~E4=Ar?ftoCeXX\5 KMI^Xgl|Ģ3"jep3OJ5IcS1vw'oHƂ`ۉWȥ>&!w}ZW`OZr\-S:_/LL$[ۼ.#ūH:BYS Uwbq>s[J*U(m<>M5%?8 ,O 8i)P:Ǟ; 224ݔG^ԙrLbZl$cxkna.i7"ѾW//'Jd ˿w O7#$nƧkUV!"CJS0Iw|^ ǞV/[ơJviq̓ad 'f6_voUyiȧo$рocZi_"f.g6~q 1xgDC'Ҹ^A@F0Z8UT_SULCm9§uFM!e)_ BJr$NPE12ܬ%YzRUw7~yQte 93p4`G THFGsD G/BHcRez@X7^mZ#-TEkq"-ש߁V !7M4Het-" (qK_ rw͛F2z"o87/H-?"H oQ-NrڪfQBX ?<+)q*S9pxbI'I&p}!*+3{ woXAS(S~DG"JTlHmq8W:*+5*)Ibl _ fIoy#VĿA3p_w_Efy_d4If),@rӑw.?/ Cf]prޓ{zVf ˲b2_؀;=L0 `e'Y₍}`GalL ? c8ay@ =gF55 Osz`W]0W!aЯA0z3ߛ`ЯD`D!!QvOŮT9QLT= o₉:xdTԊ. J %swWE%,uazZM S Ķ(њp~\t:Ȯ~D$Ll9\-Eەt_5!~X]"{CS7"jhd; 7&hahH0;0]2TY6[w{t<{NZ3# 1+FaV] laJC$wZh8l REЦ  Ǧ:lGIJ[ep{ȨEVtSE3hٟ_:bY"_,.83'vIG @wC 9@@@@?gλ2Sa/F]_"|zB6;08k]v=a` +Ok-g ,muh-NU28@ ";Fīm+ 9'G(ee/Yo:/v*#d['&n+bֹEV~A!P̵Pk_h_m̶*$z6T 09ſ f_8AYİb8`+LiF2}%kBf)Y:C@8`SFg~MX|F`mVQ= nfLXKkt([IA +S'Ӣt+\^Ŕr `e'4pw,Ӕ5熀1YF|{;X{PD0 oW|OOl2){9*' #jMI]zˇOqP hЂ+%meٺ UqUA ۾#!GGs՝Q PU=қ$$0}a=+>7qM epĎ# 2IjzcA\\dk~ (B A  !FeuFc|i}O~޲9kiwnb2Mrl`kNݶnbFZ ' T*+27]iի%cpLf9v}`2b"N%+lMZ>OKX\c!/h}jO:]Nt/ su~XPs{MuȖi R-;g0"U"nhDz(n֛ #K.{K58۬|x1خZtн=~~إ$%ZxqY]۫Yj?Ev986o) ^Z0)v2Szȥ2JSc >NWYIi➕U'`B)zwP@ {HH!#;<w:)l^3Ɛϯ 籤/Vȋ4fWk/TWߓ0Ta@9WG Kǿ3GII g+s n!d>{,8.^+?9| `m ,D?q&++%_2dFC+-n Cp?9yUo'aO-/y#NTiEh*uEUr /mQ&=25#[Xjf)~!A ﯖȧ**_n`ЙSd:o6MYU@ UB&}'4J޲1m&L}1J;qw |g'ؗM dU}%quUt$묌Zqрv8c_Vwlnafuk=WHL -*㧫?&B"!"A|D>!͉cn(:MRSel OLf~bHAR/xFbpZ9+DL' G]vEpҡ~[t\B>nŦIy%$EpӇQSK^(oi%YS씚j 1?PP@&x+bN `PIs(oJȾKu@ |GviY w peO%zrr*|'' vnRWTs- =S_(OXhGcG4)2qKOgyvɭp^8^F<U_֊~$3|GХXְv4 UNv>{mEZBҒƵ/!þ?̝L7)❑\jz 3 >iXCf5qjXc'NvRP/ NœF;4& ;ޕE jԄsZci0_{zf9G0Av᎜j}4HaWWӟ g{H>/;a}Q)pE)^Ă0GxΪ<} k/MLLJLd/ib3u*Cc$m(T/|lid499.ǡЕYeF .[Nl5ʝ{%&C/Q]M[U]7B,ZYZ!S/iCeo7)V 1qGY  xYD("%g*X R#:=Y JMy<.z(IՕv<Ԃk [Tا1.  ,(Ž ʰ+]b/Cݴ>ku=W9zߏќKJ V<=;ti(iW{k&*O0Qe^ACwPP=mt7V$@cD'g)]_Jc4 e Ջ67;?i+IY(4VIII;=كZmLQtR@%|!qM]9? ;6[6? {%;֝,s5Bjsc0i4/,8\Ff2 #ĠhJ)C~"gzDݝv'.D'\%18Lb%+hHꘛ6LE.r`: QY]Ot4wlv6&=tj.E-bH! ଳ^NgPψ5tS3 WWCƌhvL1i/󫟈i?$,h]wXu#$`\6r7t/ m[|uj9o$POn ܡU2cabN~1ˏ D(J&Sr6?2&[4lAmv7D %G};[sT&c&aG7 qD=rQ 4]/}֐׳3g-\.WA]S+;ox~ fEf GқgYɽ7W+ߘ_"M`ר- X/*pH+vzN>Rll, y{Mݿ7As3p\Z`g,8.6Y27NqcA< ա ko8'p n0d|Z5o%VŁows?q6 +u{cނq)7 ^,1g`1 )E ;Ò$`0K셽[ < ^X ׶>:[Z-xQLU4OWWLp29RIYH4a*FaT89R^2c/̧F>7$fpIVWu#+a:'tAww҉B{BkqgChĶgj.QC"4p((5>:c\t6;7m^lBM 3k2X,4 {8~{Xg>2XɻJ}Tbm& RV0+yէ $"׫bL`0eb` cdZJĒgP:O! זm>~@8z~H|.f"!P,y,耭{tC83uT -zY_q~[ kB@2)`&Ȼ6E [ExHQ3o= 7ӭEm 4GwO_IS*)Dg~^_uiN(US 'ST/vDX:fĩ+hvQ5L.ul,?t4oj>^=ŕO觤AO~S%C(m)!Ȫ:  ٍ:'؈`oI#g}yRz~5<`3iT:v#kkOnVohF+V}YbiX=4(KܚrA^G=헋gCfur! `Y>/hU-Jq돈1)=9wEބ'G>(z"0b9W;l%VӸ:əα Qy I--EBݷ 'AU $"""nj >_򆔧OyuSlW&5.Nު F];,3::+>9 P_j\j3o5A/$/v@XyrXaRL&L1y1M; ؛ᱣ0N> 5}_f/ѵ+aZo];V\_,b)E2nàd/V#;dԓI,/z3b`i/5Ĩyy[9lD{6 BTT4asim+NYI DGj2*qÀcnrEDلCsoMe3nwCj"E M{zJ[nBZq]az=T'_E?\{a;+?veоN( ["s%@:.Ft$qUq%ۥ(V9U\|HENMa{+4QzL+NJ1Gf2ukn^urK?sEj;;:t?8Ƣ_t)Bkؤ;hɛ0e|Fx}0&iSu"nqB^ߣOAV$rvȗFG/Ìzvbwi5.ָJ;f'B 7,Q Va.n}k49I}p.3%fv(e")(4Sʿi{҂0!\Dul. o%X^ D{a*қoiQQ^_rjB7E\_]Z@ґIs'boHw4qe "/.swقx}~w}wJ?a+& Iv9rnlM9=-[D=dhs 4qWg+M!A!өy:Ju\Q(52P,y@4ePu ;y$ߕ\2BUXdH! 77Y *YwHŲik֦t6x= hIDXjWuW癜r2Aþfu@$SM5`y܁ ߤTf0 .Ͻ8w$*7nͱ 92^nkMBU*1W6֕> RC8^be [Fy+t_㾦Y4|um>!-YkwR\\~jU `(m_J3N[9q2g=w|]Vc].V|M; M0G%dDB*=vdd1 %+*<{cR U| |6[]N>l/!/,8VyIB/N{oen]-0{<) <2-F^[M#pi Ejdzl =3(*%i IW%33J).Ri^u s>l4ˣIFu ΫV4Yd<)j"U&m^Y nOu]1Uu&Qu-gk5]1 ׾nTqov6.-Zi'zGFd1H;\v9Bz։6(u}]{DbVY{YLwXޑ~BoVY֜57\_&ʙJ .=J7'u_uPu¨lnϚM_drc?e#%{CU5 /,pяa]wKmy5fbs|wqؚ \||C+5nW2KMT DZm=z?rW;(h^|2_")o8~fsRL~Őπ꾋E~tNA YuCB\RoF%^9ovF:&n' qƜ4O*nxIAF} X(ڴ[2% '.å]r#%0LÃF>lFj8 H> >>瑄Hi, m1 ׯ­-xf1@f5O?W}5.D7үIj"n wEw?*>7Dz=T⎯,L1Q_{{NIXx3.I4uu,iͼ_=אuWt3(z=V~Vm#W襈+YHL,6-]G@=URYy_=1 5V?لtMXPX|Ph[jt]*ܐǩFF)[3q#uYoS6*?NLk>;?s;t Ӌ5Ⅾ%ta{,"Ӕ yB9˙wy8nV({ѯJ||UB A/1 d*my⁴fA4= )[y$RXW5t9YWEs7OZ KcVWTEt&D$ {{pɼwîjMqØzx :-r[Cw8ksatݻM󶮳c[IF3Xӡ3|ԆߪqJ:-ݘ.JK&ϹxU6&Ey/J rN,Vg]\7g<\?U1)vÇ.K@N~z@Yν8vܭЇ |&)]yrK+e޶-؋%Y5'/,vM&+vلT9ЧGߕjdkZd?,9kݭ1c Hpzl~pg;<:b"#۞MZ#7b]rvllR$Mj;C qڝx*h"IZzHâ7 ٽlMSǗ36Ʋ{ݏ7[yD.[^+)SS܋-D7iO$9rըYi.-XѯU(볖z?"8qxʡ|?$mԴ=qcNr30='KC Sj_pkԅ ,~{~n{"%u-~~Z_s-RMOZo#+\ѥ:腴j{-DHis ۮ.y>Y K}kRu:rɠ? >kSn,s1\vj4Wrpfqf{ZE6S?N^g~.j(J5b{1HNY=CZ[?s<@@J2[o^#f{\/Ǿֶ_ۚo4H?NV+{.R uK&.{!L6+4--~u7ܚ{.M,t8ؿ ƻ[=Zqb4Or+O<<_.0Wcyfiߥac9Zg|9C sXwy&ZrFdxM58ğZ~s2o^&׉\:).(5#_pwGGe7/v&^ wd՚hZcF}p{钠!dj(OYK r ֤7| A9K؁}[6^FWk ^X8gb;2|΂Ϥ7&}~Ẅ́Uc}<< ̵=aW KjQstqF9o~X^f߸WעCF/'fh"idp珏޻;_|e,|;k]=Ď^,ܔO}}B~'l6nat36rn,V>I~$,q$ -as>˴ [/Bܡٚ1۩uM?ʟ#{H_=k3/'{˽9YQܒkl;rL]-ןL{ +O>l2`z/̱=74^>6Q`uqd3uK5mu8^Mv J|=-8hM#mF[?yl ԎO_p-TTr1B_7Ů\+ʞ-jjbw*^]Bj|ҊC.YuNdPhJR7DR8R;9/h~X\u9ߍ҉X= E?HUt_¿J> ~\hnc;*,{B,!,fTٱGݹ+. e9~ۛ Wj$=ѴZfukWV{vciwj^1Dk׉Gu*)/T[e[@|v^PPUVQSTI[*>ރ&ܴփ̣7X֨Umwns/ _i51TU`įmSTSS4eb=EE&4Ч~_OS';fh^\f0AN ~ST[OQOSIh=EuE:xe:NFLSi*j0-ԧ*zTզhNՅBϰ u{:u꣰^4?>cV_o^oqrwWVPuq)@nh@C_i h @d{ԁ:d3 ^y $VF3q`?ozر}k Q` 2w?zCѸ8lA{h ȢI6gA_L9r*!oA2=W"7&?g |`OذYؙyhNJp.ƶs9C|P>ς#Ήsz<yg@vWL;|x>38W + ^>,{?xʴ/PNqvQ` 99` I|pP_@3rG3+Gȴqa>ع X x0l8c1 q=zyBx[b/& n P>"t4<OS9@\2 =tDŽDp=F]#7i`.TV r$_Y;/~ xQ^><~@vb\(LoP׍ s0 %>#Dez| >q}a6.id(`󿎍"߸}9H\2_Dx tPDy$-&(p0*˯qtЕ1cpM (lΦ/}MOt"?**ɏ8~ :#RyE>NN[oIyx e`9tH']D"ډGez?΁ /Oԉ{\y%Ov-e1 @cF`1z}aNZÂDezh>a8VE(OBߴ|X y6߂6lF_#D%TDez\(:A&  /"! Hh:.{t.y_a 3 k\.LO^ I0/ ƃ^0KDL\TLp*Y 㨘IvgC( i_Q$+8DȨLcd$ 㱠'D\墮rqGN9["Bhy"{ɹo8Ȅș^"+,&:~uT@/Җ~  $= ƴh-SooM;6[Om ivfpMd>=$[1@+ ]o8][76Sوibӎ)`o3z}c n4;A2\~6̘Vpnax/ @Й`o9lFgm$ԉAtLdݏ91G!x8*sTCmv̀eѾÁIvgC2B<$S v`?:({̠~ccva/a|ɥC6]],:F.{`$!byUB/ FC r$'"NnPK-v-eY&ٞ $G39Am]Ifa%~C$&s瘆/= x /"g=tsX ~P@½S9ws5iTSPt^3Pgtx8'ۑd,Vt8No: uAo:5 uj@7Q:Ć9(r`]qLpN"F1u•DL:Ag"HQLpN"F1u9DL:Ag"HQLp53S(NQЙ)aS'*n"q$1#Esđ&bt4T :1E:bG"F1#rƑ&bt4:1E:bGJ"F1#ՀDLƑFAg"HQLH\qfP4͑A)a J)L0iet&bt4"˙A)a #L0i%t&bt4R:1E:bA"F1͠reP&bj%8VV1E:bj%\ :1E:bj%<:1E:bj%,i%<S(VŽ3S(Vɠ3S(V53S(V£3S tUよjw5tw]鰄uX#MD &FePt5H@ "I Kd߷% ~ϭKITn[~Vu8:M;G7s MxoԽ#%ܞFiBp%T\4! T\4!XBB 憦 \sCSqNӄ`.T\4!T\4! Mg=Ygoh*i:#knh*i:# T\tFzkt?57445744kt5744nxnjp#?{1B. U}H#ϴ ͈יDWA6{̸w)]r\TR|cuA~3qr ^(_9N|s82,r6rζ {.þH9q}= *Ys?[y3bgQLbȏyF>lAr"?35d@,Ű6un̏]!Ù3o`6|_  ?~E[ArVD͊MwΊ *"'Q}䴛|v+H_H-% bgYo_B; bg˙islͱ`s}.RX \e^2G#&~V)׻:Ro4e/@+ Ssg<3X䐭|lR3 BPyHw8] ˕qNnW9ƃGrtǎ3~ 8@U%?O~AG\jU{G7 s[B%ű; [:^́uVoq΃= 32/U}qFnuN/ a/[1 WGY|S8\wAu {kW:opW]9Q"#ש}d\U3 /`,f\f́x(w㝭4ojXwkOO@8vρ$$s < ^MӷnՍUOUnzBxA3Yӷb2NzʭO8Љ+)ҏ^ ?=%o7?fwIe㘃˝wqu75'ކ`uo6 |2zЇa)0F?U}!^6XFЈN#QY+`{s(f§i4caL'W?W Ώ1Yd^.uzi^KE le*(=`9>ElZ_~M詝'ҙ_Pi35L'4|FUq4k\Nc8S+kȀLP䞪3cܜj+%?7b̡Gs<Ȃo_9^.FC&e6ZK{eY7.nƽGޖ+J=V8ׅ:79`쇃#P{g` P\>>G?\`9ǖOY_Cp"\Ga0>avy92#SX#e{'FӬ$Z#p跗.:X+wլwR?Vm+5=L le'o]\wsn֨]wfE,Cq =ƶ4)F=vkMq+Dj{~)n1PW&{'wƭu T=3;glv^yVO?vU).Y>n8q{\rq;7]ÿp_Qk}>Xh+4miG5/ks]EKvO uM fDOKGMc|z[qֽ8Ӄ]i2Τ`s2Ȃm>T՘ce_5d7*ss#d]u- P\̸ͮmY`,U\ĸޅծ:r]gűGle~,d2a +q2^B3! _L]3s!NȜ1Kmmoc|K02!۵-еB>g|/XrMJ}wWrUZe-ၼ&eAet|(W[j׭Թ;\Ʒ##Wn6fvjޙjPW:Z ՠFh-lV]ĕgAC٦ɧahaȣvϤܿ Z; '\qPꆎhtoXjj`B DŽGvهlƉlui$Ukyճ4Ch}l @jz4!0G]max5g\50Mkb7!VD\s[pUm㮖xݙ\:'٣>d_Eͫ[zudLU['Uu mpu£ՉuSh%,b֑qwxGonJxg;CE3ǒ dx`z0Rp ~rƗ_ʏJ%~*:Ua52e>TTP¼ű\.]|9:tf5S;OdMt 5ҮW!9變3'\nXoߩЯlX9͜-_o@.E/ePջAӷ5!5Ԡr[Ú? T1/>ٖsPKGƿq2) -q y>۽7a[ֳ-q;YAbM/䘪g9Oˮĸ;o*ό_"K)~σB4ԽByrSq@>j-~SPH?Ea&brns]vz˽ˠbS6-*ȂِN 35s[B\aЏ<W6Jg35sy_sUms<< K`W*2r&ε}bRT^Z+++>vsy)B7;39r494:DmA~\;7㕌#Bk@nGc+lG3kG5C1p/Tטk/a+Q^+|eJ$겋S8@NNP##5 G$UcuD'?ҷ8Џy=_c/E6W_"P\[5 ӬHOMY[YR,F95Xx>4Z؝7XxǢgv~y8DG!}T3)=8G3Sa~hA}vy$ױK9Wӣ<:J*ALX#V'ȏŁL`2>8`sLi9ϡhۯ\Ȅ/sM+;?{idA&@"!׬a͚yn%|+p`&AaLe*L7i'"wu(։51S5LvJƗȀLJ[Mo<K#{krd,r2c;|wJee̛qG%|eVSfץx~%2T1rO1rL^,)㈞K{OxN[ 4F|tߥ}F}ho=_{>} FvEpI(^$'XNP?'XsT4)x.b^=@~?hoOp~Mۿ튅oW聪oWxs|moU߄3W, AUU{՞qemYP|ts3 Gɽ 7 }Qc* bA~G ugq{ S>_g=}eи#==;T~{-=ˑ^%XixkwSi^aRA Ake]tm}T9<%ۻ8:[,>yt(~bFB 9/Zyښڽ]ٷxal!o'з7pt{ ܘ}Ǐ,/c=EϪUB/nXX鞚 ~.ޗFQ(446CǶ4?&F"^Ԡ#4F we8p?\"?Tht?8ǡ8|1?.2>_ b 9ȹ/7_*_ d0 *=Gk|17\ /;bY/xO Ӿ86qm#=B{&TxS9OĒi&ik$|1.4}eleqM8y& حIvxo,>Ry#'0 Py F~ӨAG\jUYH{EAEݳt}F \s5ϥ0K,4T<ȆJ3Cn9sBiVn"?p '4ų^-S=kz x?尘E_hm7ᳮu9K ~OxY8[Y;ڃ߶SKomc|;خvUlGm[.q2@>o?wg܁ enU4};iMNӳSW[=Pp.OpT}E/ҷ]"}~WZSL5M߮ѷoU&sV(wowEEmm3`2N93+7r-G#GI;?{yah4حioŚ&kZɿgFޝwƛ<Ѡ#4?*ijOTz6.׀|>,v4 p)| ߰<zC3ScecRH?ߝL.T/ehў_BZW}Z_/}gl`!ר{b<2A'3le/l(\%r|npֽ6A6^B_1q#g&1LkgfP΁e2 ؏B&x2fļZ@% Q JcԤ1}t;U=Ex}/^5^߮(3xv\x\x*J.spN1ׅc_xIt-p_$ϋx<5 8N"̣ׅDž˕뾘 당 OuF8b ĜrDĕǑ%M>q1q1?)ד8)pv./W?bn1պgG%+sLnLTE w\_?G2GƷE46\f 5gnsV?{0OoPǜs\A }Øi My^ه1R͉ 4^b5¯#c~pSŚ41Tl&?q}9.O#XV=#f4c~4Ol[f?9 I"wq_eeGLls?ݝ*mbv)';9Ld̳$9Qmz_UȚ.M-YF2'MoZe{z@ {ʸTTTb35$X1j{qw5]߫y_ e>rHJv\Uŗ%%D=={ԻT`iXBCp 4U̳SI | =hŴ甯W2rW|mQop T^U2~[T1s;!^++֗Z-}RY kPߟGEx,yM,a\GjRK2!o ͠uaU8o[ @]CoMMoxomX8R]D2-$zꝝ=_{*}ځ T1{pO]nΧkp:V%x.%kyCӶA6GcnI(ƧI59O;oKx>"V$|/U9"ZŶ?f^H55z>黝} T aspf5g2AU譊35S-&* s Asg&mqDϥV xNl*} Q9_;92EOKxyy-kk6ʥ ֱ&n`~.ul ׯ+aE[Ek5uEM^ ;=6˰ z z=&-BGzlCpGF=p!t8m٪'c59W`zE/:=AkXq#֐Y. ؿyqemr.M5 4 D>vϋr?Y[~sp'yޞ cRQ7%0+pOWg^?򝨈ʹ-j}( mw]eи==vk[5ANr-x@4q7.P\jx;9x*oՀzmyKv t#NB,{sQix=P -伨yZ5ИZ}ʽ#>m}_uKpc~x6A_T whA Fbc$Up*m0*F@rVg{߸\PJY{bwރ0 ]+g+6Bo2vuR})0Ҩq7NӃjפg-JWfuezKgUw]*wϙ"?ߴZ=ⷉrC{Z8G~Ibя󒍮׍g}{ zHX"'o<R97Eٮo_2m}#$F)0AJq4c0kT=U>)0Iӱh5׊e3y@苶}Ѷ/:o }g`03ނ7 >`#|w^2rV_lˉK㯉t"4.}/kz&8vd(c^:̆yożG bFOUn z qV[ı[WJPZRY=U9td<*\YhY *,ִy9tN:rK9M)|Wvkg5sy/\c<tn }<K#ד}&}Nr}<_ws+䢷:Hb$dIgcn]CT嶏P?EϥVU93 ;]5uUr8ͼ:'%cޟ(z_[[OһӬzfm\kOpbۢ. E/t5D/: ʠǭFǭ~7{WZ:1NYw_GۡY_?\FGP=:;)t?etxZ @Nߧ W-H1BBߧ5si/A_?z"qپsUH./Fh]<|Gٷ.[qhmȥ }k$]/"̣/GlZZ_(ZZcg'! nA= P@uֽ|PܣFS#HFz94WƉ $* P BQZނ{ T>mx9&%Ǹ ?7 u1%;c?3<ϊ-ט ?gLqj+H ~F~6 xv.`6tq߬m^==B#먐K1шoӸֈAR) CP)"R$NG=Q]y[{Y][3AH!:lwB,HoACP? [A\gT#lr2 ?"Yy6zj:997jh?+&GG%~26'ŏ0̓jUA?p:%e}>=o$'_ɨIEKNbu}d竨U<ΗǡZ+|o3Ԓg4Ӝg?\s&<{s8pװ`<ݗ:I$ߟ 5|_P ϻJJ?Ơb kmy2Rm.TmܴuKZ{va9kE%i7+) {Mߘ } EƄj*ǗOE'y+_4H1&R1^`BD@[A"ox=pKBZkҿ3 wD`` CB Q$$$h%6h'<<*KB|} UgЄV Hhj}YI|9=TIm!E|HH9{<榪g=H^數h35T?P'!Ԇj'r=DT-Go y 1ć 9L0 򻶲[8]{BB  GG/e~r,}!\tj Q0=M7YGi*/Y%0[`dpH=q {%o\j-Sޓ{;YGYR,==Rק`LSTj1΅ga1}c)sLq3V`#=xdg-{T-=8g)5=KOK=zR?VgY9|>,Ss(KQ?ceI&N_Ro*/gwf&3 6NNѾ v0X18F (>LS%2h#g( LȀ?|9vgZW6;:2|_ [7a)8A[[pvB+ߥ;1TijԚje;mzSTSp@19ܷ>zzw;"bs!j Bw{h%%]zg TPs%QſFO-I%ڹUcǢj|9ZPڶZPC`$1ڭP Їk5h-S>4zK1Utu#FChhSцӳԿ-<|IuɃZ_kiGU 'B}jz=AChGMjcR*q>@?.ՅP4j~/wS;2GvKrؒD3Rx[k4؎n{GoӘ G[;s11u纋d\lOsO5o=^1n9-Q1hg1& 7^5$#Aubsk3O3mAA!  t: ɐƦ9iRŞ G9Meh#xNqPƣ5CW^CXb#lbe%,#Gs=CG%Υ?r].5\ƟOpRȃ8jt .d~?cӕcgO#4yXf/v66֫zUT._grAK37xԣխ7ܠ;`?=Z%#[8~x|fчf3<3Oy}x\|Շq\>CNƋj pSA_#5Ij=7m ގ8k ִmG|9.L^'8IM7?Eܫ(W4~gƿx=}-ztJ7߂~hh'#X jv~ kA1f( eA^K$mvmGџz,Rz~?-㼬_P+j75O3uz.i_Y"a n'7B&k2}ʖSGK5=4_͇g|V+1&a & NXOF- *zP%*5H6L)ƚĿ Q9wjUxQ A{]ׅ:X2r?E/?Ѐ7A7 haRV濓{ZC[hy;.[aĞ%i'رx/'Ca=2$Fz9zmL9O.Н=.]!j^ӟ+.66T]m8g'@NH%^8qOI6p败^ ]xمu9>ޞ8zhOt`67*=x7 8ãe }~})Q0 FXbяF2>{#sGsјgc-ʬk˭6o=jhMfsmyf&dj3C}kNʧ:)Sf/([|9&.`v_E'|)M?bv3#fqp}N`l7C;hy1f o<U7}.9~zgGjTn9kjg4nh' D7deh-V[ikV;A4i3%oq/p#_5GGה7%Ƌ[w\Vg7&yGif?Hu<JWnVVojFjVME *3jA *[ jP9Oz2չOrqߥz9*sR>۪JK`cqaӢ끛]m5+ r>cMdk?k[`TUT.걃:Pk3_[2񑬭{9W'XඦcO9;0a:H=vz4nz$ғVw]l}I,.S{$]5H9DȂ0vݪ=_pzt\7W۾Wdk͗욹ݷ@{>6_}\%j |r> j7ϔlů}6k8/k{ͶM2ԶEcnm6sMռۭ}X=b|[^)Χ~*cשh[>Λxg/[>N9?ok:9{K͟KΥ[_1Wh?q8B=vwn?vk͝."Pkb=aӾ69-RS8OU[U7bqֽ9tk[/(n4O+]i mb΋YE;Ŭh Ks7X~hTT}+xY|+K +Zb-/m^ K8_+{ieWzޔΔގAom[Zbfk-9_ci`4B@ʷ&yK$X/«]݌hzW|Vsȝhk:TǎN;K[ю7^B3ky}C[3k?AmHƗd򖌶kOepTz<.u}l.{;U7`<M[aZ{b{\gs}xf\C/@_>zӋcgKot?HvFыyntz^gڙqCtU@x$z⁌g_G/V9wӞzTS׫\r*? rߨ~[}Z-y["4|x~ޣD"?y6r,n%_٬^BM­C=vSݍTEϵ]zla1lB\S{ڪކw-x\j%Kވd#626^SIYܫ@ [Ļc{?g~6iƽMoڬy1vӓ0&}Kc>rbyV6bøv5ĠNFhhhkΗdtU5n5@ݘ=S}m1ɘߘK7}AE{m?Ђ=|=!l%qM\k __kPlxv0F6#EؤqѶ=J#זXS!p yI1缝|iFww1p_r福b*r||5@Q}t7-qヌ0P cm^yVfS|! &)VpTidL9þ z'lƉ>=au L R5j0ţSoS˓q5Cax6vè~3-j}u ZHL^{f~mMk0.gxw={ESwt,x_/g 5ݏFޓzB_ȀLH1ᙒo5$ɎʹuWV{e fRAZiM)GGSXr`|&̭g?OC| [xρ,A/Or cN\`ꈇ|kSa"w"Ϛh>3H?bqPƪj{9o!9ua G3\BM75 q.P`9yfjY/:י77E}H*:C3/TUѾqz3XJm#`L)>ŷ 0Q×9n|3l89+=w+:Ptü~#p Lj94~y~F>d.~HGA8<<˜sQQlQl%Gɳ^̧榝MQ[ܸVq__֨@kkD%4:֘@ +;P͚՚\vk 5@" ߙ{A =a,0߶q։Ό+nk^[+wB#Hn 1X8vppg%zqlv`mkdpӃ[f\ϻ(㡇QVm= ( 9p=jLaxt<+z>NFC0[“O>A 9]Dq0ckqhnv`ki^~b]VPtӔҒĠ3hjG_?c vk|i'Nޚ8~sܧl98kkX[.x-?58A$-f;jd;zi8#O0$Mg\Wį=g`hGܩU=\S8Lsv~ѣ*q-ZZ(%2OJByB3~UBs: “0= |P ~gw7ʀ*|vgKC1-=쑷â>kgb&_O T)[? F~n;Ahu1t T?sYZ uls\ft:f*\0uPcǺ~m;y:r:9??s`hM'MC Л9cN"tVk=u7R綡glW½JV͹c1x691fscI 2)4ZhhL fh'yVߩ̏5 Af x^ a"L9sygy>!4\32;".iu:sCv<3"[U\R~[OV12X A8_fSc\fApU)3ק5 Ќy<|}Xd>#{ftUO7M)-)MuAS;od~o[[m$7;=7P}C%s%z&6 {=>~ނ-ܿgmolW }CV8-CN[^p  3>R,waƏ#Cj"9BW $;ѿp/|;l~籇9 ;ᡫo p)rup.Г/ S˽nz[V*WސV*Rގ= KD|M peO+qʜNzH5D6ɜ6n+Ky}7pEEjxEjz1\ v%jH]4Ԃj1F*7G,ob&syb,oTc\/4|T AY;_nf\M;J3WuA;#2H7kuvD*Nlz#M/Gj/ߘAj@% Jh:ԁ1$6;"5UHjP+ʑ0Tx<^zDk;]濟.0(rY|]]##t%x/bb{Eb}{0RNZPhM];AWc{ouIriAd(Hv%;/"򻶪g^x^̧^[ż~ڣ}DotЋ|*{uهM)FVRkG^SigJ>ryܧ6&<s>Yow@Jx"}Tr|,#Ytqt>YL&73Vw}?/Yg`Pe|0)[NtV}w{mG)|GGގzy;cogn+T#4TOSI]^װ^4'kdui`3ps\?Sxعk<'qyK<)juC<)t{Os H1uFދ;*ͩLzx|y/V&W/ 1.3.SŮ92N/dT8W?^2z2{K^_+:"9ȂQF7Eqo$_@)ERq5uBd^]wrlVqU77GzN >[X5 !!2H=qz-SF;N-4SB$2IĸxDA8gf3HK Z^XP+"IHh&@(.bX "\"<|}2͗g^{Zg1)c2xH >/r,Y4xldzxA;5Xk_V!ՉWM Ncv 4v3l7f3݌8Ki̸ʛvf=O=_-vD;"4 Gk7xء]6}?˔?vxikџ8?J=@rBl"ǓsR14֏snK5W/Jq7z}zx½`Dy.WkqoQ*U!dzcϘf=c ]fv*|콥AUrl7V^v&1>9+tLHH$ױ4 &`r9dH~\y:c6vg$;G3.w8 ]cu:z;JdFa <%nҟP3I cg~]*== { #y$tV1Ue4'}j=tԾAv A^5E^; \zǸ/yys@-\s\-i1ƕM[nuvC?׬z#oŹg\'mQcп3׎uؽC01[2ʡVt%^gIAIbF0>8oQ[}s>=cqףLчD&'d˞Na <φ.2>@?2XV-BLWo YiɲPZ煾 v?v3I 0x*o X щds=sJf|5e5k]t[VS [Ϣͭm%f[o!nZo[x ^7C1m7!m71|:o冷XnWQR.jZkQ 5x~.#gd=ZtC.8  ^&ˈt??O(G)^9](qPG-КX8O>q>t؍},g'aq{Y!r9|.9\lA,b L}9З#^gIC_>i˧/g\|_PÊrI5|~r IK.~!sc9ǩ_?Ly/m7?eC/9"!W! y<_p p+a9vXxp1^",ߏKKm|?9~[f_ i;@ z 0;T6ĭ!n񭂋 @B].|XP*|.J^5jO퉛Sّ_^_>Xp>?N_F}j\qQ;j -pq_p\'i#茝my$[35|c )J~%-KL`A;ۑv _}kOň1_<4v53k&āҕ[A#/m b)Wq0Fr<]6IŸ ~+#OA_x9}:K-< `,gNvƑk5W/]ץ81= C`\yEQj-:** Ezbjڿ_ykTkMRRe?sceg Kß×J),a"H|kdbH>/:5ϫ뱳pD켂]侨rb Riihs~fxm@^`28R+ʞ#.޶]tٚ4|֡vbL5 nha^_#E;B}E;BO@NNM=+nk͡).-!OQK =!׆X]:q3t u{:B{hqB>q^k/[;^ ?zNCo"z uva}}86eWMigL'ρ{tq1?q8C|O hCGs)`.u{:˥ObSZCk아; Trr<֋4tfkӃqu{>j3ZCMD;O 5xNo)ɱdzD g2Sf1>fɎWU!1[7wSmoWj{%^a3Ǜ uZPy.NM K!Τ2n=lW]~P۩-r Vkq_깸qE bP'xҵ rz8~=|:>0H#A3@ZzKE݇ ={+0?߇~(f'x>)N)O[iS@DOʻWMf$.y*/ZF@ASGB)R;?Ƨp|*zTFnt`hG_8΅^?zwu]!W%r+ytA)Dd*Ӟy~~_,T qNm'p;ÏC.߷Ztgmݛ pJN {~2zA7 @[',c;w'ڵW@.~ =9A^㷓9y%&ԇRO0 YWF1>Fh,kvmzN]㈾còg'";qo/TϠnuAsڼjx&s:Nw|,֚q&3:eKGL|(m!(-xioSSAThg:3PY3i"ڙOsi.ڙrxq 2 E)j>$;*:WҜ1(v@wDu/s*A-hjl=}NMqi[ێwݹÍ9`7.>7+ԆX{)[ڇ1X (lLS=ԳW-}SkIg3~^z 9lh=hԅǫ>b|_Wp $Nj︡T̽j"X0*Ał ,ǣﰯQ#F:^S~\=g}~{.R<ǖߝبj_rv~qjv-=wܗ:/pirסX]".-l*jx} 6nb.xʋֆKSq|z~wXGן6:8Ͽߜf3ONCCj̝)=~ta =5q[0dV֪Vpi((lvi( ytKRW 塬KS6QY|KUm PyEG}a?: RrܔMouʖ^vS|0^=P3XήRު^Mk+߫ɿj#{Tu45dNM/ߚ1U~)ͩ{wE^{H޻P>ud`%Moxs<8X*q\Vzzi׃3ޛ9z3Wo I9 vWSczX"4b>FRGOj)C-`jC-=cg3h)C-=E]xmwN>k#11e=#M޶8're2v.`H}1zWs})'%EoA˾Ğ2W{k\{kl]S}O']s_\׫$|Zj

fPӜqMc J^=*QqkY[̅/&uʖ^Qil!J>x:s3W:1}Y퉐qL-$s>?>Q**eacb9SzI8Irs9ZTq񲳊N*L&Fjg,,wv7_ /F WSm+[o8E߶8yb7Mۛ_o!n;ZWv3ޅp>)n⶟@m3~= ;a;݂$ߔu__DjP=,l ^z%g_<sAZqpNqTq g7p 鵧 s_qs뤚m]O)0d2)QzraU_zV9NkM SO[89S~W|e)&] K98px hG3:eKG5L`=?Nww'-Ld$//)<OtKP?\?G??^}Xp)\JܖqB+1hf s;޷E^U'V >-rp]18.CZQ&8gފbcoGu]/n{WrX&޵ j x}wϵm |% \p Z2OS~Kz@|{۪>P@/h$xzAcݘZ$^ xj1Ƚu6p7tf'C/ T̽4CA{o #ybkp"̂,g߇N!{_`/3>92Pb:~GT/$ڇUR}1~1WߜJ-RGZJ4R RR VSl U^ua LR-ji&3of}3y3iY)+(2- _!n@|x V:Ŀ$o+_.CY 4'UP|L2qO_zoǣޡa;lbSa-8/{;m!=_޷q)b)8XK`kvww1m/m/ |?:'R'o]Uƫ}'} Q0KkO~l~⽟=ʛv~hR*[?RyPߍd|5OcO| s`6Hښm/yVh'?K\g?;3_3ۿP\B&,%5`N)K_ \;utx׹?/"G{\F6'vA rAKtFPg舶c fG~{1~ȟ ia#fG8?іף{ʇFƊ>|k}3 qj8_q>X1Pؘ|/1?0NU N` LpuW*Z~ Y[$0Vi|tڈPjCM3d&~vI=ɪHjwmzYVȚ];U!aU9fXXkEpĀʧE4{9(LES} 56۫NdU? ֝pt#;2~)[z=N;⃩Wt /%NYē3/;oMn[IwցLl^O}IhN$ߺ0NwĿAbs)ͩ{DJ7>(w/=xwj{ XO`5Fxs~<uʖ^֞t1^>bTU-Aa.b@A޵{.y^/FܒDk9r`Oិk^}fⰙ*s37&aohgm`kG/{K"̷VZxo&g[xk x% u̳ވ:ﻸ~A*/Z/m"S {MjOuJM>|fu`KS3w~]*=~4 ۏ>d 00LHkz|{M\kU߃E{]E |N޿$6R?'nJk^yJa8צg.cV1RZȟavM>Ll~4㧸7bw}^6s8ySzs!R8KN;NߑvܰSN{ SS8lrgl̜RrCR1׹ʯ=9uGJc6hU|=""J^d\tAǣ-eKGkO`-?1 i勞\/|{_x)[ڇ1}X n "15XU*᫤Jw*W%UNUתљؘ?r-Uk2ա&ԁ56aNɷǿAS?zkǫ׏Nxh ShyV q'j^bNh wC' z;֑@C8zn͠$ߔjP՞EPؾx5j]]@>ljSǞ%0ٜ:ӸN}M`kԷC*a2sM&OY"Q0*z$s<}mi$+x/l_[zG tx1Sװ*ze*Iw}# >^?Z^vh==;ì- vp#zzXKYZ _=FkP|ʿ4e<*pڿ.>uHzΠYbX+` lT6|[*[$;*'ZwJj [kߢ9F<8WIr>#\$yHxpI`}TD4lzw6fsijKrn/5R$βQ?Rܔ^q[KTz [OoG]g J^=WsXc!ڮrb2 8ߣuJ>3* iuK|o]t_+Qbbb1cV#R]ƌۏ>F#HHJ}~1 O~n5뤚1Yh8:fhGˈyr$óhs@L1nw_ '$n=OeO)CaSX9tr㥃T' 1`5`38?4Szt\gy 3|{l'izg?Jv@`?M@㒝 q>;xdSa <3 H7Abs_{JsJ{=qyabČ\⥏\gYf!%X/w6zˑ{WjX2U T,&yP@a{.a_W^۩vj5z. {8=:eKG=`{ `'N/l `;;; `ֶ fZ vnd}T6mC/P1׹ Fs 'n '"yasϽt?9Dsq.s9Sz{q4%:C_|$f$[s}SK (\KQ|_ZZ.j㗉eC-]R/^Fkusu(,Jd#R1or2Aw3U'*>8  0T_)X(;^%?1prP$ q+xY+k[Yb VgsJ-sBާU"5xԠpz@_zo~%c5UYgU'8YVgCx@3ת Rl` *䪊yy]~:5_Z[MgUYd5pb-w9ӬIr^vI}<׏ecМhɘƥ%8tbn鵶yi烈v>潰5߾Uί6K 'fUŪ`A3{`w~B>'rD&q'PsE]OY:4v!qwwgAڇ e`3XOz2*ztx9PMX5md~=ҔuiVC &S?=8̲XB[]۱|G-m..o tW:C'צ̥*UVQk`llƜ3 =lh!Kk\kZm5ȿ ބR-C"no놸n[] |dGwP^z[:j'Ÿ){DU{'[Fj:iXI`צ{EI0sJ+T;?Q Dg!~9~zx],z)şsENI$sq' }=۾P9VNHLc Xwꈽ] ^!R'y\s/$W 9jO_P_ [>>[vWuUn/+uTI;}hoۡ C}خw ǷMت\{ZDoqE[wjxAoZI']-N֋vVvvdqeh#*h=^[khuu_}AOxz9%zW$;=-zFX9N|:^;1RӽXх׽u,oP"｡/ _x3>n?=_~;0Pڟ|rZbz*ZO$ Zm8r2Exk'~[g׎ǡ$Hɐ3)i=6JvZK];ʖ~:q`\pn.dLe=f4R Ҽ*^zSπ -=RCzaa6j#u{K/`lDN6Nx96uʖ^cCч чmh}>`qyka5>VBkXRŴ"6o`=At 藎z%59: >} XAkY{Oc8hm:Q[{W>x>e` lF^yd~imRS8` 9:Ik|D:L>cpZ1nN1.5y ۧ} SYZWiNv*A;ΒH-xq\i} 9n-c,^r]zDI;ϿXob 9|梁+boÖ܋/s!Wk'ٛuo_ /0W/\ZCWzr\i^z Yb-*PگK/ogcK&ek؋qb- 텐K nJwk(V#ZE[6Ǡ&֤j#ةg-<{H {Xc-nn:ɷ^voöԋٛ}A㏢Gц+%N⥞)?DL{B7Bglv6A7C+DߺYg'7|߻۰6-Z@<4+/m׎h~=mO5T1#'Y |U ?%z}| > ]')I_R"Ov&QiJ. @YEDddFptSG "h k0 }mAAɈ, *AdA.p$}sںu0 0;`31r02Ib&1C>[15l{l?g1"x./reIC.6{}W?.i(MPVKF~gп fl*ahyohNib$uY/@.L3c.v:{ZB{KȻ;ْx \O~NcMKl ПH$c'6ؾ-0ҿsb)_ `>6g1'cTb)Z"[/a.m̥M̥̥ٶ88 ',q;al1fۏ ۭw-n9xC|\9x/m$ϬVSnw.|;+<ixo#'cL]8w{gz]glgfC&/%_,/G?YuIm>MzW;w{YuHg1 G<5#x>O30 6f6lFl8CsXXe7[{ا{B ^Op >0]Wrm4_\o3ћ,޽kR_XEhq ]o-z[L>X} K]X XEo+_m+,z[a t>Za 919Cg>,z\ʸhIv[H$ϒ ]oakWo \qof8=-'~xlO'hf7rG,?Ec5Er,ECa'|9p ch5E1q(^Sy) '8#1|闼iG4#iT 4F;=ecb-+gxɵqch7Ѿ7{ Γ?& 66& r|-l .6%uy2|l$+ELƟI>n{̟G~3uR{jK{:87̞̙s 9q_//G w=pƼkjCv7>hH.~)E$GyRgk9, ~8 zIiN'.=m_rɃ Z<-ϐጓA9ς6HG>8M#'LSC02` <OXr0A`%7Z _JL;%}YG5Z}zB:< m]EjZRh{ >`iSj-Jz ^V?"5Bj ?7FѾ,,hp~~HM\Gl^=>Γ?F{bmϸ5^lA.lŵv+l ذ=7rel(SכJs0YO̥̥Uُtyt">NX *H~Ŧ_|l/6{bU68'8}'N`Yl+K O!*@ef[5KܮJ1U"mI#Hpݞck`spyP-}MݗIW[)4w௮ zh=^3ڏE8nkն^n/06fl{ m bIS0ZL29?hqk٠7tArZ:m䷥݄+zJa23lj\U n`[MX:x&)8q&0m3֢hnLab+\Slga,|48˭G2/mi[{jy0kpkCM,r+ `̡=ӽR:Lon{qTo:}wO8w9:>`)Ͻ ޅ_aqᜏ?G;ϭ!/nCElynߠqq^M%߀7#G/ކnuŮ'Bf>ьw] # }yn&fOē!g`-6}*ګ*bmv6@[Ge#lu{K<@ێƴl]hvw &F2O4-up;q´ o[8GK6N>ylg&Va^anjc vƾ㖸4q*Bx~$x-"%xuո%xՃ_gFAo9As0]YֆZ̯W%U@9RAUwAMAmnTJPk$ѯǣ_Ӥ]x^Sh-z({XL?90ʣ+8:ԅ?ziA=/?W_ WB&J[W;HeTNeT*T[]%oa )W A;iB-3/oH@U6褍|oNݜ_9v~$+ cD[='yv9wY̋M9 E\zb_Sl:FuKiJE3W׫ъ&9n3ژ )ն6#9 ӅAT*.E.μZ0wEÐN;&~/4kֽ=OƼzɎԸԴ;Z߀a)z[ʱ-t^iћ:Lo3[Rm%aXkZְ_z>M7Y0f05l5e O`5KeMonqw6ְiYö}6a-kZUDC5L1q(ߑ-Em-]k2/9O68L!B8d e\I(Ɲ&[C~= y= ,-$?ڵq^&DY^<:No8o\=yQx T]ƭm$jփP^-Y\УBMХoe{TF'Ư\WR*WbG4i*uZ &r^Yؘ|+C3L3l1F@batQ<- tql=Zٯຠ#1^{q%ʁe1:lit&0?ZHnpt†N~Ԣ] H,6)EL^?S?d?X0]SQ75p42x 6~M#藼q-k ͠\ 2fE%Gџe0ߞy/4سc9w`,ٿ1~E a_3NL5f=g2L߲t%oFcvZB;o[}|RP_y8M-Džu6 +*4> ^jK_1p|s_RYl'!^`]'h{=>nlڥ{K܆KY30f)O`^f߉2GWWASho>Oaz3d'0ǵ'|G^nڻ{ژ^6O?džS'|b-ckGYcٹ%ԉ:q:q=~gߡC1:q=&ߧQ'-G,uL }R'Nc1o",-i>}A MIA͠\P-U:~_X5b;uj0H *W ;[5Np}PcZS"c-.j~C4FqL9ɭ̹cA\5s3blGJ7 r`}Q16fOCix^fL % c]۵gyEt)϶tm׶6v{3#x{ 1i DWVDSVFo]x|F'lKum\Kem/y} y{h'9AFx}xhxy2̡q`F{O#A<ϡFR/clo!,⹖Eشe^ 3|.ӛ 'a 큜;s{op<Ϫ,Y6ڨ׆<3p7$ }ն)} 1״>e2SV_ff޽ -ei`.bkDfX Xk_M^>Fs5k]X oÛhca2e,cl[-\ a_ཨڶ+6ft 0me%{_^BRs6cgԜuRs6Po>לψXO6SИy!KXaK \Sm۱men{Nb ^;gϱ|r-{`'kK[R%g,Ic==ƺz sqg9O2u%hEg1yآ#Oc?nGSE-?OOpAk>5 v$&Wqќ+iҷ{/Z{LB ɠTS0 r/XiO*C9 K6#kkO^ 0 xm~?0ߒAyΫ cÏz蠎#g~fP>ͷku.ce̺ Ȉ[m%oaifdgJ;ю{᝾uڂ5V;@^mJ;_DlgڣĮ544➆5ZlihNq0_qw S;}|4ƭ܂mzh|lNܚMp t`oviWGiJq]  ߃ z<x\{c{ko_->\y~!j1a6Ծ~^E"EzAog4tEƔ{}w }=\޵q5-Ɠw۽ ċ"s/s0VYȢ=8x7^ gxn 9<#7gB Xe `@-{x%j$i&DmW[xJH\3W+μ_´25`VRC]y1*17*^CEs~P  d0%>aWombOOre1l~4~Z?| 삯kj<P<7K7".6@ߏ$ >Yyх\`KЪpxj?GεtS&(P.R@~@K^0J AfP*C Vo.{U*@g) NɿA ԇ5ĭǭ1l<*?3$t}>l`I8 o&OEg'7? ,j[XYXy53qf'6ILc4mX+_|F_\Sm˰o>h,K,&y+8c~D+;%Vdp,\~]D[8fn4w=iM[2 NbOe='ч ONr# 6%PnCp4cS87p ["zqǸjOHeGjO'lM -@UG1v6vCG4Չc|#k2ڔ>i 9mε»^{9~ 9FL:-R6c1/̿F]V]Vb6N5Fyu8]7]]zp9{tۅr<Cwg4{qMc[EWJqd,21gC#ohrN_ԊON> zNG0-亢PRGo]oA e|[ǣg$< iį|IS#BV 眑,=at܆4chϡF= 8"Wy `MAg`dϣq0&ӞNH ô=-L[4)y10^jXNv̞vd^&.r6a0>3 ^QtTö[dكknTthJrωcsla3ДYm. xh>e_mAGbwVX %a^?똗Ѯ^^ŗ5lgIN^PrHy{!8 GWG8~sg`+l!%G,sUlrlJb7\ o5~k8e7׳1}Y|9K, ,9K~24'ܨ>_ܨoHhG}rN$;x19C)Mtp!eQ} ӛLA)l9%Z31/3OԢFZ_) i7xCS9O2%hE)шSxVꚯ5SkFrM4U/mVA櫣ZPC#ڢ-o] ck@4'k(ik{ yok yob{Kޛ1E4iNlXĒf%7-îhɛE7Sn%vD Nv;wĭ%n;/,q{迗k۽K'^#Нuĭ;הej|_]`C=d[:q A_[%n EzGBǰQz2Wڝ6hOfz*$}HZ>b_X 3Ⰹs64ir[܆}6lmQ>l^Qԅ_l/6ϗoGS`/-Ѯ{0߇=@7Ũϻ_bamvv{[T 7c& 6g6Ѫ|>>&4!%ݗ}I&NEOF8Zn??4Z}أw|KGSbOX9ގ)(B8g4[jw=vq$Fsol+E[9Z'r2Höp;9 k 8)Ph;I iʱNsZ N9Hi$:Pc՝jP;WupȹcZ永mf/qn%  :B{9Ngwp\Ϝs]iw%FZmH2]S:~䩝SBCs' :|?_7TmI fwal!fцh.Vǻ8^ǻp'hw3͟|>Eh1v$ar"Ia~'+L_Y:g0lC>>ĮcA#}}Ќ e|A? 0 F1(~G8y9 Ȅie\oNٌ͘Noa _ft[|-gE;ڙnlR#>S@Tb4[g?ay-f276'd> bOg0/or׈lhwu4v,̅x7ru>'̀)\SVUxA|1q(ヌ/9·x;1~?J}؄f?!ZN?Aߒ40/+Y{>#/c6S3v6=뜶n7lk {fNځ};AgZq4 3 :郰vTh̵sa5huG|fj.CCyy>v`g(C~ vA0R+p!vD7$QТBϓ 1t_`y9s؝G+sZ g2Nt=q)꿕{n枫V$wA5d!J;ѹCm9'5&0Do)zKDZ^b3ɯ$  ;p~<c4/6Mݢ_ -o V+Ӓ6164vAm{ĴJ%^n};]I篐$[VpzAor/"'XE~ۈs9 6ܵ!>=KAI6rc܊NDsm~ghC{ 14.ߌ.'bm/7ѭbO6'r>Ǚ lj`b C.9`Kqݴze"&E7ϣY&kQOڙ@GQe? ޫAVCa K" "計0:83wG 88" ((,%N?Ɠ3ukNs>}owzt5ZΌdg(m"Ƞ^|1ϒ6<~ZUy\k/Ku!| Kz]$0yf&In54>"cM6fװ Bzv8*u= M.+ƬԿ+56ilKcj>{>>sO}O;Qܘdsjgb dFXrB;VjoC;Vj2`^eYveZF}eZJYvqfȆ=8]hg YXRw-]G6V؁v|3gilMS.s [1-' ?:?18 gx|`?qƗ!gar2994E}GM$Z#{k7cS0>J~amkCh8' \DÒϋ~Y:F s[i-AYQIϸnԠ An@ r~>H|r eװGT<fu^'jǜwTVca{jWաHZ#naM! |6Fv X{0a?~sW}$Le7wLl-lO E%s1EN |`>J@=e1*(YΑɓlby@UqXpo/s{<7@|Op =pTmH8 ){^Js^'8G9&_u}nx6j8?p-=Yx~q2ϕݜ+ў=W=g%} ߄s-1%NCi#zd=ttcjS-AHJbߘaoFO3pT2:i Zk=C;]@مsJc섽#ttvAGgJq6sf}}s[`3sJW*u[wr`Ŗ/` )ov7ޗ RlMĕҠ;tqS͢O9yyȇ5P|Rr>|d5f^yg <~M<qsv5 2ǝS7a$yRnG:DHThیnv,2٣r!8J'zFpO<+</s%O/ u>M]65$g {;Fsb߅_cqduʣ^y0|<~JGFdːњi5vs{Y^^CcRm^C8M3)qr5&y͉&?zރ<'rNi㰏%1[|@/L'&Ln栗9L5&>9b6-b*=8a~qe.@]?)))q~zl c`,6Z_O.3,f1}S<>flu{5vej|G&~g]??-b[B!6RKR6F~>3ZX&O׬&Maq[erWSc{ǎH=4u&7z0 srhڱ9ݼ <33'ϸ4D#`l'rۊwQC|u8P7s`7G'1\ϥa#7y(sY7= .]/e:uyJ y7J\ Ur5rH~+ aǯ~^eqU4Tg%P(YWfⳛ͕Y9*x̷3;)oof6 6zI&7ӛљn(ޚ+)͉ӌ{(͎ݬ[cLx66<_5[|:<'#<>AM8R 5Qo_wM|դ5U>k#m֛qks~iluw}uXOm-nv$9߀5d&70 9uoM[kZ5_FXa~ckO;N.V;SQQA9l 3L-ojR# R(:(&0p\>xH۹ʰUM?r /av?2fg*^͎\C&2NUo&4yh6y5̇E<^y1'siFXml6s\&ٌ̓sb` SS)Ƈ=w5^ocPZ]nbAkMh4f`u\W1O/CcRmIO:U\WV\CV#*4qN)-3/K~2L4Ea7졯䞀!ķ3 o;Ɂ;8GH=zz7͹ \s~d#y^];% Fptم1}5o]"c7{mh\w~z3 Vu7ZMNZ/sL=QO&j?n55tz,%+iG/U{2y=osy>ho0'ٟd,tX6m.ur Ad.s\>BigUHXrXŇ뀽aSNe}%[sr1_/DgSD?o?U:EeTg1] C7袯Ew וNW}z@/cv4*2i. ԀPAɁxWb'^ֿ֦V'%u (|'K|sQ_a7 `o--t^ յS1qHJqZ{"v{_1`x~cx+V#~0!3އE?b]vZ껜fh_o_7Ss=uAp'|~ӘMu7 ]¾^d5Jۿh` s;ަG_ y80IYOr'ɀ}@3AGv< go`|]9 81>п[^Wm7]>1L)}'ߤߠfKsC> sEc8~ ;x>_ӷ7A;15_Le 08ϱrj@mNYMfRϩ ib*t9Wbb[eNq&_/@ XF~o&Lt({׆o`| 3hqHd@\iyz15O#Synf>؏&2f:O3Go|8h&'@39ds<ߜ^ً=Kcc>8\~ʸ.h3I` j>gSdh䴐JO/ۨowBf-,D|QHeTw'zVujAu~}:`P]W3x똽mUUĤůsﯔ<ތp%wJ.޺H5Rl _] KvF!) -ɵvy+m.$u*_R`j'sS.@i4REE53_2q?#߫Qxj @B_Ã*Y?ê^96=Q9^p~UĐv5a%Z~)cc^>IOVC*!>z0<'pOI /^o{*>ۣ4OPB^ :B/H^LP}1ϲa_%] ګ_?oѿcC !8E?ּ_}0atw= cz<~s*st#he͞)?@g0C+p.OBR]N1ovѮ_DG''y|Hv?7[}AcnVP BnUު.͠upLwnO1g-޺ H9kn)چ`xIUT Ƨ9t=[1TrWӍ 1pjݜ+fc1si+7^rkAհ㪐*|݀Éc85Sn #)W\)t;j0Bjm-ON?8nwBoݠ3H>;;# o=V4{;;{a(M..nh)GbG~ F_ FxPDUo@/BVLL / U>; }-}yNF<.0 &ç9H>?RlSB|0'@SS$_kom9\"}27aZ?P/{bze H]}%sJW^e?=9e -FR>c_`l ~g`DCAI1f-+$ľK¾ jXf~niA)uSnx|C*dme~[{5>{c>>50mЎ)Rӻ7PԘOjL#m_bj@o^'o6h @ꕸbO+1D? b:cK$>YbtӋxy%.FW׃I16&o~%ao:$c(ߍQ?`@y3~H~ Rl>RM>C?FW~ھ-IިVfse].W!2cպX~)vZq9hu*L7>8{Q)gcqi8py8{NhY섭n*p8On=ݜ+&͝镳 H;KOcUi) 2}+L AB,"\D~$?ED?E*:)OA~~~EBE|VΉi; 'E?ړG{{TKBe*SL|Hcȁw: $3! ou_W|l<緛/ *H{;U-/\e1,UN-vHιLu%iAi՝fЈǍD#^SZVrL{)%x~Rߙw aMfb/M68 _Rmws% {Bq?v$mΨsJibaÝwqw,OW6;3@+#>݀.wfrvc0׻m>zn4&n4)}^~ʊh} sŵ۽~c<nc6m.(Cp)QCoWF3?~뙡ogxݼ^^LFo7e9b6-!k@U<_{w080 Ó0^I#)8g9|FF؟c_u[^oɿe􆗩FyDՁ鉿1׎ #N(m PIKR>\Gc,4a~yXf2Ʌ_=L3ΥK.]N33=s`,@g NI94~윾xh~wP`Ni~_F=׻tj<RoMP ɯ_Rcx 8$=N+a_[ŵ4mbwnOz@q{lm_qN8'`&l!fvlw]s`7ض6z;dXk^kafǶ#]k9N ZagWq֙.g9[!Ҭ/yQQ滲Ry%ONZBq^m ."r%u)@W_#g-Q_Oh/@?Aj!0>H1>zm*¯⓿wG&6?BI<6 oc1^_OmZ^g]hdϔWeѸ Pq|5 q;oc _߯n38]ܿ/^nNIsm@W`Գ9Hhf$ Co[x= }лS~ =&퉦z{`=4^إ᧯׆1 grQ{;f`С4VڂѮ?7@ .K38yM @?In ςz:YĿ? )b^Q:RloqN//"QA3H>^`H~> ?0ӓёѓ }iS^z*=`=zj =|#0 t OO39>|fOt j6t $-,)܀\])y- {%u/܀}dv 9 5'`;ogY멵Vs]3}cEA멹hynzj.rHtg鬧0}LߚMeL}z"A.=K@A쇸6 XO C IhFsp$W84Ƴߙ:C$?gYu^ y)8G{05-Xэf75$+V7RC] ok,U2!wB5 z)Rb 7A4h^*vTأCwA_wh'TDe7u5V(MPoAﯫr>)ުGAM!n$-"9OJ"Fkպ6:)[W3mݶFsA]Pm:T7ɕ߸:pLP=HDj痟[S Oo0a }X~ $Cq4t)"-$ρi79R|ޟH nh~Z22Zʺ-MCKA%N ݗsΑxP;='I̓` c` ԇ'Ig>sFGDoގF}oX$-|9 8cKc!y;Jg3_l/a,E Ź(` c_ӣYnb> uCѬ{փ־cؐYX7~aOcm0-Ԛ¾׾;= ٗf 1G">f5lKigE(UНtwC -1j@Q@TqG0 *2FdIH$a@$Qyw;}}~)t+OԹݷt$ͭþ8K/]js {K'ִA~/q]!ϻZ(9/SPjw>sC6dVXJ߸RFCaZ8JhBqtan8XF߹?vZ/^Brz {ϸN@ Hqu7-\}d5/k.y-UUϼk)>eR5ש]9khRRZ:yi,6{+8% ~=屸>{shAR:nzno;<s7ۃ.].y,]jwO y,]-?]\i<%ӎ>=C݉&k70c&/:A[ǣxڍҎ?cFÇ~3> G@ '`,~k/b,|>}?c^(3^;}5EHߒ|Or=dNONh*Lp#L2LM Rr`מ7k1$^i zZzkܸPzU0tŚ~MQ>yψSXoӯߦϜXWW j} |.6)iإ:4|+ }7-T'.Զc`s| }*c"ԏ]hGS8Հ1w%vCN.G_]INW[I/_bWӋ҉0Wc]c5qҍuo"_  F$ *ϭ@?tk[aa()hap1:{ x k7x{C9w Y'⧐uB!{!>O>c:!{:!F+p"EPƭa#(+SFivy 5F#F=;[[;g kJhlt;}h Rں/r spO܇]{%K:Cw~z_o$@ --vuxXƽh {[ýpObU~O!Ͽ{W=Aƿ.YMwsw#ѝ& 젵$Hg2ژ?w;wߝo t]LxSm8q 'yJyl8?cq mCFcM|@m{/qe#`($wS {Jvc{EbH}p.}{sTswߤ=SxgijwO%Wexq%՗^qwx\>.H9]TNu!9Zw>6I~I_{o׬ku4)ݷk6O`/@%ķ}g :W~3/,O| tlOV2XJ]S)fU]8}|$\X.-}[Jڸ Wt71<KU> C6.02V4r>vg{;2^a%^Bs\8r9瑿w'<#u!5FēۈvqP,Z)~Uk;OaƷÃz`[#DO!7c\7HrwS);<# R9qz,n?E\l3G8}w75;o/ݦh|ϝhw4?*e5If5p5p &np7^@oe?oBWCCfCw_I\duA]#[{#h- t)C9D%c+U~jKUNnmozW9VeͱD|]ՙ=ǩ:<'<a Ga;O['P ! zÃt 巳[s8\ &.:@PR5}995ry'Xs<c܍=<|C2MoH9S1ި#ah2_ Ρ>N>+/3>)b[쐷NƐ̭KRƲr6Wf@Y̗9'{~1="}8^ t^WQGлihv$]=-=MrpǣZ 'l k`ZIHSoS113(T:iu e SS%jU젡b {)ps &H)nTD3o%y=5#eT~C\ ^7t35 $DSܒY'JyD=Y߼+yGq Þl֋l&}1r-C]]&<_{ EsznMIdݠLwoG4=$@,9GFf]SP fQG[OD0_IT}T8JcDQ-pu dH%97HaK6 L2P+)*_vd50R`H>GqO)GAIVyn5B?D~hur7fSπi0&ҕռ47 mW:ѩأb=kף6Q+P ǣ6Q;Q}QpǢ'̨,֮O^5Lrfzp =g4?㭁]{z dT1L7&gnHսu8ܩ1fwl lz{ =BpƐM~Z]g&^?ԦRn~wlVݳ]entRxd ~ q Rc_Wރ=c7Vx z|!4^%W;-6Ŗ9:ykMyOPr ƻrhg!{~161[^>>BCN3H1^7nK'kG .)~mv_]9Wbrt\%yÏ\H=+J",JZML-+ 33uvK:.-|fF#-F+N'F{}yA+1y}F0c\Ctc8-0b}\S)(1Jk13|>kxu kFshsg;o/=u?ڗ//ڗ!.{,A3hf.9WNI CeQLYeQ5]}< temiah{үQBeacѪԘ ~ބ`6)'sAGZz]H} ct8کuXaWlbaV 85 C޻oM]?axvk{/FYN_=:A_yw:A?5}`o97Pj)g#|.Y ð+vff W_Kñ{qԹSzχ} .PPސQbEh OBT5/#qOaHkVb 0 s b=Ri'H~RD*(?vSȿժ|5K_) fv9͡0tW}91,'~) 7s7̑O;x f u>>8>+kØ_9A3ѧ7s` @mF|iA{=Fa,O"ϑ{rS?`OU +;m+M_ 0G^ ͑*.@E̍`?&v_ s t~f<g9 N?ʝ]R/Ѽ_veƗ~y/J쒦Ws{Ws~/5tpv]Xս;Ѓ^~y/Zc=:x>=mrZH~k Iwjk`l $Ɲwz_ _`dݐ yyy#ؽtXҶ~h?5zQ/ PJ׈O#e&QͺfԄZpUfyIcwZ^;K jQ7ꢵ+jt7aq%?3gUU98s'{jJg fN{bќ&Fk Rmj~BGZH4=֭ #n7} u>4g#)*{=g{Ysz!}1}辳up9s$J1ިzi/t=QϪg$͡%-uxe^hq8^Xϝh^$K 2zY{h^ԮOtg}0Ax !0c(^+1y? 9VE&XõmʅEGg@'۩ZؓJ=B2׌S̍ y%V~u>xi 槡SBLA)'s Psϫe|NS0qq։^hkja]r4KT>A?Z[G̣f0$F١elLLh]{ $c?yߒBOBO`, r3V7,ǵRvz]Ho0X势8Ghim7vY\c?X;VQGḵyq:Ɨu[{DW''<MŤǣ ڢJbUUd0(CE3W6NA <_J[K 3x>q#m(:/QcF#"uJЁsԱW͏y_@[ǣ>sU⃗m3kA iU43`̆4jg7F>&_WfJ1o_;bv?%/S?)Z萃GoRX+`H9Xʁ]{V`}Iʏ]?֪Z'7VvW9Ve ^L/\og%?uKRVc_ a'\=ʯ]gc&4| 8=vQ8́"ٰFX?փ72abR&38nߙ{@>Ashyb`fё5@.겄69鲄\8貌v\EWtyAWy)/%hLռαzR(fMʧ]jYF-ثYAe5K-k@M@͡b;ܗC\벚jfɺƽw]V#hm9@L[zЗ.GK3 ]&K1"YyE3cO%$?NMHڌCg6codl4@J2ͮZ@^I[@ nh4ђW_+쁟觇Zv{%إغ᧋lRboҿݘͷ'F3}ѿ7 {: {{h BPˍ7FyN~؟&A[ǣgN~ƪk>bg8!)>R`$<c@csVkbP>A?BI"-D2 臓G* G"a ̀7aH9ʁ]{>NLUNnԭҫҭz=^α*yhiܟGߙǘPk{Ӈ[A2ߒ'7P⸧~h]׌ϣR`|_*XRסٷhl9,Ehn%v"K˷-&NMv/ |h:!- hlj]=J&4lab3w2/Z]̓s!>ȆeüaL7{3f4t mX|8.V'e>s̢Yh%3|B86?>SvC6rvJy4y4v^N^n8w=PEI?t{M#Q-q=; G`Eo4Go3F<8ed  3PbƖ\s77^85g4# &Z٧2(>gD\9GM=3S|ׅ]+{)-[ W`=.|sOmqX9^X1zXe 7 o#=xW'h ?@H:Cb4@hg3)տ1hN8PcrƽpykMZ_ p[k:AHyᐷnػ_W@.o]ĕA;3hg9E-=JvcrPFKscyvmE5 dh0p'򌾁|# 5ޡa G 4$6%CG i[I?5 6 "8ocH0-q$zxΟFRю'?q'ѧֆ~MB=gSqu::%pv ӥk5Ew `f0(?J g# ]N;t9a4Rcϡ161W A~^ \|!P|6 1z6PC\뿀} k0 6R_#i76H~sn=3}/,D Bƃ`u0ިiq/H ~n4 i4LcnK{4⟆?GGngH9Vu2ڴRޗy`y+?+-X$ȩ?j cgm_JX`11G[Y|~CNW_"v~$k z3~/pʺ4zn e0oG;{`r<%Pmcqӏ0+F4@#ٰ V'Wh|5΂<(և枃 t~`~jbd6꼍{UpA1-:7V/èr4\q_JYƱKڙ@GQe݆ު0@H& ":,6G% ʢa K¢H l,ɡ$}wW}.{hp}g.חC{CArޕ4+Af8'W8g$g9@<~Ntu:~[Ԏ_N7N3#W98Ͼ'RlM?YBnz/[oɌwQBoޛ"7mFm޹̈́:ڑ}1-[!4mm7Pu֑eZG|$kFYv7)QyqM/jr)Gms)ߡL_ZwfGT]K+]zWw~KWCܭu+|}v|ɿwacu^~&Ǥx?f]tӅ-o||wq&d|T+//Vjչ@t(ϥj7F}v? 95 lRgؖ=TcMi藎ocT'J|]h-|qԨz|;ꡃ u߃u`=RέA#(2b}Rn'ּw5j B-k~-r}(}}V%T Z/O#C ^U7 o_jAo$yaAP4˝6c`|><* dOm&<( KYnyH=`|LF7M|;OYf:1 xx'b袲ߺN@Ro;.^ͺ9;uhoDZs41l@.߰@0 g|R @Љnh+5INsR>+ hlsJg#ɷ~@?` <SZt[CYHvO T-tԯz1i> C )>|j f0^F3h o» kǿ ih<9r5g|Quؙ88;r_zx^2|Zfw |SYSR.ւ{A_;S,C ;yF'ktgw/ @_02ϲ1=7]:eHc,_"XLb/Cz^gZz?_`VD;ϰ>Կ o E7Ϡ͢mA 1mGtoFrN_a}8 狾 qpRYl01:gbX`ϳGC:`e/HMo#QPʪmAo3U?}P0,qʖGaч 0ן uLI0ɿ_ /P>[R49-ʩz3=\@jX,ZI$k oB:{?FV \%m`]v-Y_A.W`k=¿kI.8v÷;c5ο8y559|mBJ/}˚6֥ضѓ۰ ۰^FMoYWu-vC;r59 R|Gq|= 9qrto%o %c+?n3/E'0ه`߃Ch4[,"Pr/Ւ闞>F>q8bby(]cU[5n*GkyW;:@:8\T _hAT ,^b+2; j- %!߾:PdPb-o5cy]'o Zo'&ŤK䎯 FL1zlL~h{q`݌$C[H%G 9$ߺ=,({dI/!ً+;nׁn^Hڃdiw 5X% ͥg[hɁ _ fBPr1mZm??5̄'~,0~᫪Q?A!|A /=,: Q ؖ͏|VpG=IPt遏]^e}x` Lt ccYqʖ y X|0} $_ Aۋ4K גWHv^M{p/[8ublNie0 FXxH9(E;*V3 s$Z.]Igb+*y L>x7`=2/@_`:LÇigLcSsr# ^ZKz)KY_C/1C/A)>K3y55FE|FY9^z!$; n}^ȶb;N_%; yIξǿbCފ y<?!o9oȁTC\/;B]ʛҿ[6`r`^0\S/z}R,]W$}P+hm^54h :BoȹnՋ$cGE;U }]I #wq}.TR>ԵF6ַivSmPd^A{hma?6hA{kY{*VgҜ^rh?Q? u?KOSc3$맨)CO~*~PWeF̹* ϜX\wO~mzUCW*+PsJ}g@A"U yj[%|+A[%r V)p}5⼆^G-**`"IfDoOA߷n "շZ|&t?tԷ=9oO-;~?H}$8ǘ!a6=l<U-t_ >H? ~G v7֍ޓ` 3]~֥ңe;,;eI:^b='V>wC ͡)H:h=W/Q}/iz2H&I$ il4 oq7g.H1QVǠt]A=cqHJ %;Ÿmrm[X'`<OOc 1oY}ٖҬݿiagILnICis]_'tx*Ṑ3\t~I>05ĜL&|JT+n'> f02@aEsX R9wcuϧΧs Ko Ooz[ձY?. ]`dۙv&^FO.6Ԡۛj@%䰕{[ţPWi/p=S=0K/o.P3(]"y/\ #sI['9^ꙓb? 4s$;+vTmiKo0 ^:zu9n.|_c:qHJj}Tc-?|/1a*̀`H~2)3K~n%?7xZfM-Y7z~ust'*~Mk4 FEm?7}.k%&ӌ^KN@iZJUZVvKL3w3I9.yVGeX a.gsY+`-l6yFog[_* 8>)!Bؒ{۱޶m{؅V rʽy(Cb\9j܄4MirY 2%mUP YV"a/jrL-ڙ ?7k|q u_Rd nWY7kal"|/nZQ[ؿ@s[t@#wV3h M."kOEkCHiznPcܟĜ^⯍IPO3jݟ(=kΰr'qD;*.zݞguABgQ+og#vl7Y!w֥v}Ha>lfJ-ߟa-buD{B/>@m҈Cl39~1/BkRlY4ۛ~m/EܠnZgҌK΋htz )4> /"sFʙc=?V:s>pJ߳8 `fhY'@c֫pO40q uKţP/jj9jZYMk5ׂ߄U.1#` "5<&x<6/҃\x"|`*|9g={$;Ϻӂ{ӃE3Yzlf`xfp[*ڜκۉ;v/Q{X/A=>fn_=)σk6WD,`3a7:˃Q;^"g|ܳ%ZB!VWqʖGj4 wYso /I ߋv?vD;YX]r`53:)j ~rJM\ת9uB Jsˠ[9O}} 57=Pͬo[ ubo6P|C7S"(g>Cw vOuՏҐ~?T9\Q⽟3G߅>]yU^ЛxY緶GcwൊWY߅/3u)4s*GxX//a/[NoΓ3\s5\sO+NOpS+1m]~eLLnEc8 |8a a:@9|Zg.p}z#8ĺҕ[l!V>į BwQnYWus1.vFv܍)U"Rר$/_#\9 1WTUTfl.^7[%-lM'e3Z'J1*6U.ч:Q\;KNr$yV;Mw` dd%rF8ף8w9otw`"dGn~bhXT\"/Q{c;߄6sͨssh VB[˾:@*"Qsj̇K?b?ʹNkK4:A7{_|9GO#N t^?@mޏֱGV֞ֆ?#h*Ւ)Sn|j d>LnZ_eC..CO:%S_zpTU7mc?/H%;ɑd?uN+N_4%iz{ tH /=(g|AsO]eG_<;ٓhr0z??ycs9y!juNFo98Tnsp2yFG>*)%K1^7m!I'ο3mg1po47.G0F8]9tTl+d'4ꢵ=^a3laN a<13cAeCTzT|$4y9ا9af}cs sp hJ,d_7_xspa.a}1[L _yg1;WrF TzP׆oo_b.ifqrt^:@s/q;A$W eƝs0_r07nySRy{y}L+m ^ܹ*Ae+r/):6}MH5!n(?/Q %-8)4u|pRg vT{[gV/zpBjl*ק?_Vxnvgnvr+ԍ49U-kY­κ 3r]-nvU;}8|ȭWQsk+۲ jb[Q_+WuקjSZIռiQ2Z$yj |rS{Oxׄ">-.Abm܁z[Dk㦝i{eSpNv}Dn75YҁϷ fgԦgZk(-8VQZ(]Uu}9zݨGgC=:[(r=RԡC=1)0f L)8i6͠iԨeKt=4˟)|l2 3uUk7JoؖUo/ z[όPqұ{um @6,b..B3lNYǽ:=%`9dӓKXɺIgLleRLfEfLnr Y_m)[qal&=F+2W2꼌Z.gV\X y}kRlKl`覀<+nm`]M;Ol˪BhNa%qQ3fC3<V*Y `v&QTHUW7j] 3' YqAePq4( ABTE4"BY$(!BؗIXN_99{9yNQ}z{&NoN`'S·T*X⮇ [S+Wo·MMo#v-9Ws&_\A>pvn_p>-}U[79VUPִ޼tLsO9A|}_[1$FMձOf 83\'|p&('}`[fB5gk;]#-OtQYE|O,"W`VgyP}A%UtcU%MކWeAoC z{Wӫj۫m(5bކa0ބaAo z{6 @WorǼ1އxj]Q 75fa L|SYwya Svulz Psv0>%ϟ|J'0汆-4~a 6 ͂o`2kdULbyڪ9e9}ەn{JxЯ]{:E94?nqlc}k!ZN!{7q[FȂw)9_J-WQ o!w3uyNs?DZ/ sONB :9*Ʌ|(t&ʺ,F$j\±k|Ws ˟}'Ĝ]w:B=PA.wU<iSΙ!JDu:8uu:u]FNp3rBPw+jW%מ>iOʎ[;h 7@S38CޚwsFsSSUx^0ą8 w;^q+~>/AC>hg!$A7:Қ޷R轈cU>6뾌FuoriyZhu9=wq"X)ovK1c9qR3lP̳K1{ ʠzuF;׆GS?ĘCzkPl %C;+^RØ#]ؒf=q\<[)(弄J;]Y7SW>ă~'9/ѹ+OW.l)XUOwn7OAS 60)[^'.㾆~+jd'{Y+9_ }g?.“}{=5`3q#?/ꃗF7{D;پ#gX)s5n<= >#|{*^`<d'y*bG/sf':}Ï/r^8=} xGѶt_UkV:Szɱs0Ǭa Eo/@6iAo zL= zh " Aoo:Tלg^x M%b~m2m9# yaH.1 |fgŷ 伍%G搱{&S zPAw(Uy_  Rl;3Ya.|AʮMǴ_>} _/XϿ`MC023-5̿}-O L0 e-` gPVx!yĜ a/**G;Ʊ*yWh7/]p ?]e{d?I9χ_[ÎIX㿐w'sy$Ild8s^j gWlgYʹ r&`<&zmGD9F,{blb2\=q /d\K;GqU[![Xŧ_Z;jߚe*MZZe- -VXk!vZ%m [CG+H8Hy=ns~;a;TqY_S¸6~A.ݟgk yah"++CUʸW՚q ǬŰ byk^HKb/ยs/Vd=bLWkBO2j/em_`ʆMrkOu0t:쏬 h1>|Pjd],`o}%bGiIT•7jC]ooam ÕPsk%UtM⸼zk~zkfݫ_x=BfP3Zpނ[0~)[:nq oA>nfĽ׆FAxj҄IvN4dUvZ~i]ƌ͛ ox kaмʹU}Ҝ&snf-u}CގvԽbۑv䷍mTw[Vw~`hv{uw.p?t7/] yJǿ.u!RgtG)o= yKd< yK4-=NzЏ+~U}_i~ïː^@ۓ</ y d r|Z_B1^8(wpsT'^s|PtUF0 Ƈ^g )~ #N4ru#pdWбdg8$0?$dt :OBt8o[  :K1*VYɗPɆz:ڏ5}1JS uO5=߱R?c|| bߦօ) ߐ0Ym5_7Ӑ@[:?C8n|셃}߱5`?>{#.Zz--[ClcΟ A+[~䚽<|΅؀7ػa;+[w>t9cUW*'ӾYho pDsoJ^=zo 7cU{aon:.)5tc?E'k76@s[-GG|В͠)4fh^ulx^gvglV{v'}k=l# ZG#|mD,R\5AKSJKJS9VUS6MCt4_G'{; {?Pvulz 3 {Ю:~A}{?Q?{վ[\Hn7wbntܫEty=UU5zUY'-9Î~0<5S9q,:|<' ѾZC{}7YVwqƥ<$2.G"yMv"P^xRl'/S×ej:{%8-1pGkb¸!ht0 7Dlz6qU7/LnJ;38VU;c7}Kkf0bR9nyMpdu t1?Ɩ|~4)x[fkGiI׏"4ZEcW«wZ+[~v=h׺Mܯ`2L|*Oe|2)[:=GO3TUha<RO``  xq #iSK>`2L ٜ=%߾a|*M5S*V9 α{Խa.XIҁ{xc.=ykηKaaHt؏a̷{?aw0ws ҹ&ٽl/7؏W癐3mkW&,uım'`9VG\gǻ9_p\E|9؟:+t~2ɹޟr9UiĆʹ^(s 83YorX +[^=z#lUً'8OU<^{w@1v9wrk18qzxt9Wkq엒c͢>Uţ_ڎN}'9/$D!}lC :=6OpNG#b8@?ЃeC߻ܦtcUUm>yS VyiwZ#^7 u!u's}N}>_@wr9Q\h\xCAs2/ͩi's1Wµn3_9x?\lxIBS~SHML^ixS_M}>)FSG}o͡$AS&/$;*V9Y±.P.Ѻ{okkw.0'Tӎ-֞M|zrg7.p''[sRו:p 9}!Sx)Jczi9:@} ԇPv#34< `Rzi/ߋ=o/Z/a0Sh3ِdJƿa #oɌ oHx>) y{K!N 9|KtAɐ/МdS_5{pϿ/ {~?Q<>=cnt7sOC4t{B_x P5il闎SbCCa qHփ^PW!sIx Sq /K\<}i?* w3sTnU ?%_B1aGt1P>FφFω/h3XvFahgAc&QmDq\}=%]g<RAuuꯎ?/`"|EΦ70_ CӨT0&pjĺATm)z;_Ug.3\] \%u\lxt+}8' Ƈk.0kB ܯ>TaKS2rZz ʩ:%!rv6yF|;AJu2%͇ "w?$jq^[HkvƋNv/( !_ 8,wp1yx/:t1oN1.v<&Oa6OыȳNg\M뷲v|Q.C;u11+iu)>< 6N3eWǦ{3~7.D#9 ڭ Ahh6s5-JO4qWA /AţPƪj~Uso#hNtu -G1~-u"ƎZMx~\=t ὎+[6#Pb\h -:޻.P-n.w|ە3y+ ɽ9PLL7#wj}|kTu5=5P} }zBrԏIRr)t>uzFEñB^~1BmyPG==A˨D'$cb`O^k猧A1 }8_Ci\lxڛg,%J }B?J 42>>p}xO3*>oqZF)['̧R+8RӹTJ ?Tu*w\VRw3楽f-9̧W@6qy3- |0=^>a|->^k֐ aE/:eKP9*j2rzz鐡KB|tVh$; 3:Fy|'ZUOv7}pp^jR)ab|;}nIK9̐2:' y;I9 W9Tеj6rujyx@[߳zF󡘚grw&tFsoJ^=h6ab5u5-Voh^VZ֔ءWľi W`0 rcfLCƥs [ El6 ?3V1f=6 ނǾm-Hsa6|Z쫐 #\7WmRߎe} ib(}uN c'TnB_\'{j>;xŹʋB&ѧ|1ι4f @sE fj0ImOyi5L"EɷIx TccPi 2m3̅ybjka r+ſKbn`h'NS8__zGwbz` b=%6Wz1F:b˷֘CVoC޶!(1R[1ؐbCފU '4y;mi)4y;vl945xij.Ss˘z37z㫪0K'0uK/\lxwqʇ @^>g>} ^Oѻuox !^ K9_}@\tzrr:cU׉N4#X'GaH/UmA^S}6%Gd|L_ $)5+։7?h>#=e<RA'|>82^l3m~}!oS*|kjTC&[r&E;Nbc}t;0)yr@?տ_j.9e9tK.n)=I< `$Ι3cu إF yfno͸K2~BTKS4G.n6{=u`{ qaEOs2>31#v91),ƥز,lga; Y&<+^d\K;J3J;?pvŴsi~֌/KAͽΚ?<=gvZ۸6N?(bvvs &H=O¿$kh'M#[Ϣ͑+߼i V Ȅ0_R#7e,bKI'YEؙ`]kh#?B{R2wׁю괠Wό&g>؝uz VUWn=8z&3㬌8'w<R+Wt#a=UIͣWagU(h9 $[|`brxi|!?HE 5{C ֋}om&?? 6DK~0RSPҶhZ}SUmsڎÎ~1sD?˟:kW0d Y{agb( J pzX youJ?[~(~<` r"q<7쁃V6dJ_%pT!/cPVJL)u8{~0丝|Ȇ5\kuaqZ?=,CsY 7澙?3Xy)B۹o>l\Ε-/ )( }*Ώ'E+Mee+X+Ys='h yΩ&`^!XKTiʭE;3x })jje,kd,=#9S 9E);^EnǢ`$[ٌ[vvTν>y"Ǫ_ lC{zյkZH,^ղ9lboG!AS{{z;_SS(| k"lXz|.B*fU.uF=z=b R$0ޒ^oIϷZAhy[oxSt)[2~ hw#5oI?\ЂOBGl]#Wc@\תuv@744U :Qw>}ɖ2H;* Gg8+򓉀D:F%t+J""*pA^^HW0HЫ(*(T=9uW +Z=_y3'焚ԭˋ_Mal? mNﺶj͎ #i;~=/@kh )!CP0z< l\Ced~>㙟@᳐D{aMHŶWi/CW~ZKhm" g(K@Gz/QB{~A{k^z0C3L3&sa!,"Y:k>\/|e?= c#>zy4k1UM93PT$|O^Gb*k86P/8/1T^  6xT`hSh+gce8qI2I`o򐛟W2|Z 鰘šǠ4+_;us`.5]G?M _P- f sd+w[IvvPSQ}i;~vw8G|>%~CܡPQώe6=~#(.3)'vg@sHz;Op 6KmktC]%G(!>kPw]`[  D9\ D7]k?ii͸9h-I .~nI+6X <"~yrl^,F?9.6 F|1 Z؈yߒ{| $@%O$>U#V~PX>jnK.%=*5ba݂3h-h'y-H.><p\I^˴.A]x BsoZfg oa ` :w{XnV讬u:x0퉿cb:3'we A?ށOREپ5| zyg{M/|k5N΅_=1͙tNĽ*%)Ju }r2Bz%[h[RG;%ٳ.= !}+f3zOc?Ѷfi &vFUUt+Z=5 aP&>lbo|ͪ0ЧsDʼGy" [O +/^gnHLҬZ,j^K53EMmk5=hg3nILt=h{::պ g`9B}`iK?f3Z'X[գ6b~2azڣ @yiVr]hqف9c)4֗.cCҔ?{uނ樺 lsT]c=ecx1vg3tC]?kA@QnA nB @/ZĜn蠻G\2?)sv'wJWjՒ9_' }aodFÿ~ι_uuݗ>u0|?[DZLd,Mw}gr=:27JsB o00֝a-愩0ZՂٌ̳r:Lq\?qA^air|949<J/*$Z*ԀZ?i_ ZbN.4O3/itgOgh]1.~e\(+Ԇ$`f%w97bQ}q/JE7kLKnoJBq(@1(u.1k`Sޱ\X*g)V ~]Džbδ]YogA$ϟdb73/*ISU *@ M2%E|TʺK27}"VMSkvcȋiN][]9sZr47#ڇ`6ÿ8Q*hU)g㏩~?΍ SȪuo:aokCVj䷞씻\!( P Jd}J.J{ ԇz1X1óO1VL%l=-N"/IM3\(|@o%ګAmH4/ףF:Zzd׭~m]~ dgvш\Y=a6#xZ[bRbfX塒h'B훑oJ?7v c׀wG}Nl&9D= x,lL7x:qܞk%uu6A,fS 6XR$əzPT줢Iohpi LOm3ftׂ6"@o#hr6'dަ˩c:i07V_Oo}N % f!q,Y +`ǫ*blڮͬz?1O2UZr!́V 8nMcV'Vlɵ4r?d:boVF!n/VyQ =<؏uzؙT͹o>sN:id §fV_ z<RMW5mE{[ᴇN"=Aٓ>N|{.ׅ$;&~{Q8 9~]t{H/9zY5ϳ$&9CaF>-Y+{> S|]U3L1N_PO}"GmRT0(43*@{iÈAsnj}=Ӛa9 >"3'q49dR,cg$;DquH^'1uC ?n0wQx0 އY\?/>7#:~u9 PM}q~bg H9ZX]x_&7Eb]w* ym=Lzr1|a)bt<&Ƕ~Hnbl0`)`lr\sŜgz//pR߽|/CWXv**JNQ’RT(,wvZ*\qE;)gokI{h+t))"]+1HvtMkOke$^{M}H@QԽW@{Խ=5A15 {/jkW>FTu/Co(1Hvѷ*wx8 i0Vhsl@@$xޅ ;# oi6HMW0ۡhNMo g-yHazڋ+ͼϤ':h>9Ccv^U ¯y4Dώ}I/՚9%[ :@w\:Ch}}:]S`czhg B`|RE;FfM Fj[u Vy_3tė䭣BλA/M>=ǍֆShR? N.';]?= M8LG_>&VkãTT;NcT{,%ƨ?D;`ώF8S`:iIoiӉAs=9=='T{{:`63'Ҩ} ~t^НG' a1s"[|ڵ~5ؚO^3G͏oXDbb[œyq5H,U2qt /'֥ٷ6܆6Og.Ŗxv63cY/iG?nA;NSMptJ g4n ʣg&uG6`;n_pУ?OG+4 \C4t,_9"ֱ,F_'ю4/ O~͞94?~3p dJdnoῩ뼛͌T'i?Amv5'\Fr修޴׿_̩;űiWv]hwMryi7i[&=[7Iحu[Ah ߷ض|bgȚÖ5wC y!?HORhϋyAsnjYkN߷T%Q>kOVG'f3'*%JC ;AۄkEK2Tjv'm82<q{@p=$\*@piV|1[ٍ֘mynh瓌x\&zm~!!hiC pkr'髅-y}3{zg/MG+4 \CSOB=f q_u~:~MYxv=3a y7+2=&yڭ-T4KgC$%jCxI$&q\}3F"jd:z99XE-mEҼt|T߆b0h;~qV߄dk?gMi9vEWhxH67`+5J `+|Jl_guhru|[͏i_ CX ZW~~"m;jMg#E<2g?3)31|GI敓ROkIDsL}';dw|@9|;G s+ώe6slt^$W%[Y ~fc8#1=c}NQq;3-զ.(hs y8bG$8q*8YE*QjM1Ǟ=oa Aۍ4ؑ0R3G A}џ}#aFm}[l_$;C-v>ǟc{v;a?5:B&&}{>8~DtG;6|E H.1ČD.B٢o໔b'اb?ĎyEWh@l5?G[ 8N!8JG5>N&9M?>'sz1s' ttܷhw b-]37??yȝlk?~9~mwpۂb߆0ŶЎs~ƺ3lF9ߝk'ݠY05E:5ֵGmc9q9>S~*Yb%܁v( 'p>r\mxL]ܨa>$<=.ҜVKcgqwh;[SZ"Nt&"򹈼-"""H1VO)'+CuMky4痔[^{סyՀW { kRuPUS5U^׆.4&F{7;7̟~ywXAs7 y@ޚ@ޞ [ yj m=ty@Qv[֛4B ܷŚjA=`cpfܛYƳͬ815n9?k\w q<=޲(rXHh2@wuw߁9kp0Yg|鼵vm5qi=5Icox|xr<=Luwa{6s3k"H8IsBzć@Q_̽"q'yxfbѿWF&a6,  ;K/~+`5S"mIcc?¶f xu6t]6=H|oμf=%$7yĿ,^3O0}g_S.{9t2m_07mXS75MvS)`mD]7 k$ie#aݰ$XvӾvhn;Q?;rxp8z{sǩ7`?xgk7>ۋ\qGg$#*n}^_9֏sm.oq]} =ͼ7޾Bqc! Frn}ܜ\{y$\r\}˛Η[[[!l](n$M{~ CPBDҴkb3_I zΦSRs;3PD"P!"#fN-*K5e_#%B#J?w{>^}ޝ99{>bg[ O",QNAϻgj( R 5(M }!ZơV,@Bx;[l*XVոo5~>>+}`+7.Z'w܅%V'B$C[=RU.P)bs{lhkzB?Tvܴ3}VaaLr#8IuߤޓaLd"kD|b*Z*nPuhH=GPwA]0z7v>TS9lxS6k.}wammX2>^6ϰ6 M{sa5Լ(藾otQћ9wa!Rl.ʦoWjʹU^4@{[{leXu֨_޵{! gf`|>} Y;a=kz7r}<80\:6J;9a &ΝYWfs^2g[n5Ag߁!kG2f}޿zM!{A­Cf=q 0{[Z2/`laaSvul`ZvN6{v4>%%{KX>`+`ư4{۩V뗰R絬{c+{*랪s?EPLrjZ2ɑ@uyf<aX2 ;<fiKG{8Yp$cYeYu/u:w4;sFwC~ǯ!ogȁp rޢrޮUjUC/J=g=aX栚{ja{^`T#{fSbVgﺊ x  z `4;ؿf@`Nν`nO,\p\cm,cw-(7XX0y (&P>MKzWvҖV%x2so7c/<g]1xޮ x3^-^?ɣ ^W^er,x`Tn?OycYeNK}a+BP$5 }q/ޠ=s]xs\9LBs-ԽR{ guo`{yym@~ uOR3@ch-A{KCݛ1<=O <ϵ _IoAyL6-_!oI@[[C' ݡH2!oȁ[u3zN$kt<|SwjwspscX7=⹖~u^ z=r4\  zFy^ 0K@)(|ؓ#`HR Dp:?į\,LOϘu(ɾ!lwg|9NI:̷K7)Pom%H ]6'{C#Nh'ۗo^?m$^,;;6|@=*7?5*q79G=xw|NR ʎ[W^I9hb)0 pEoj=Ӽx$I;[m4Kym7_;4=waզ;Z}:t +z@M5a=[}oNv2bjgi9Nx[Yé̛,Bձşz;Z [꫽ͬ`&*s>֫z{U&˱U>Gaێ}C<և?"q:9mfi:9JnXM'{v==I~̷oʎ[:| w?R;!38 =j|6w: 6Ŀfփw+M]@SGSEj`:ro9zh$s$s,wYUxof)[:+-ºv![n>C|tu_'m:s tZZ!򀞧**"iy_TTOC<}ٽh:/s¾^ Z* *ͱ}md!}m5ʑP<:ëC}ÃoUc\S>pޢ59ykc[sRN[7d՜xg=x_ U}T䮶UsАHCðq7A͆O^;NC(~XԿONU}]7}Y5!g_g_Sh/^$_D[n=%-xܠ U = ב\eߣI`󐗟>ԅ~-Sԡ(9uyzTtٕ8 K M}豍y6nACdGw7 }ȍTM{*=;;ʦ末HT.ꑛ:ԣDPԣ}5C&DS5jC}. `?|6/9ꍊoXRfMW w ^og{?9yT<><!9$v7Cیυw`|KGDKҀ[>b<{vR[DRt[,`ahC>!o ?!Oka/`3H:lFhg9| ҈38ZjN6/h 79)<KҽI\ $ZGdRMձ_g_[-uvG."Ga/l~`?puN{[g8&gеjZy9~ 8:ȵVѾE!{y@?6^gc8E_:_}C1׃l8%aֽ4|^FO|Uz5j9w 3X/!w؇!r&+H'ܿ>KǢqsw qкm!l}+^7w@>ƽ[Y{.Zz䦞9۷8vg݉Op|\utn)EtYi(7MqXtNa L͟5N zRvsP @C\SAK[iJ6([4,CPJP6:X~ς;sUk}PLM=[]Ao:D8[;RzE!,yR.R .a9kI'3ޠxk0^Z4hA5T 7h>>*iI] @}H@s7įD;*nSSY"^[{{CPy3CݛނԽ- uoI^ uof{ j ^d]xT.wd1Hv:I@?LAO=LoC$ yMz_7C޺֋< 0me#m96 ^F _mߥneߘo'pOB}SS ;jM`Mh̀90Aj͆)03Y<δ&̚` pf͂E h{6L7Ccǚ3a/a_~ߧ. >bX _ƽ2굔Z|"Pw?sy)½xowǮTr!SZr[sҫ,sٟ{;Nb_!:Rym t[;o]?/G3?iNthLt %Ɍ>vy+P}-uP} K/ߌ_Nj!̋ѻCv-vgW  !_{p2Aɋp-b|^Mp.a#lc`\FS"M˒~(/CFokl[b v 1>7h'?ag1 i'/kE JBfY):RW$;{Cvt]ʿ.M@9xUPſ7,fΕj7 Jzkjc[ߩC[Cxocs: IC$ߜ51p?v+C[]뗞y9nP9CΞjjX5MN5.`cP=y(ƸͿ_i'ӣ&?tN'COD;2w =% =/C7 }?H17W R9wZKcncuwGN݇S(=D'r|"9O<LD槪ư W6gጏO0g# AmS FG1> 8S@&1>&rk()=BuCg>PC>9miLj(-{>AdžLA~xt[>#VJҐ$g+o!oKɁ5|AFC1ΐum_67 ¿Mm"R޶25|{)o y>G }@涾elM}v +a >ǥk~j}Tzک[XOOg<κy)βg-^OB_=KT@z|~oߣc1ƏSpܰGGQΏY[: 8?Yf.t~wְZ\OzZ?1G厑~GfuhECݯ0~_5WU{PPƯCT);T{c0~w 1ٟC4yw.;ov~/f}S|ſA~r ˸H6V"W$;Eȁ[BAޘ-BJnsA7`au=^ԉjGı&x߃1P*+J2< AmCmoB>ijT俚AcxKQr|k??B|'xO$@}渤1Emԋɴu dhm赴:oϾ3 SC'C^~NUد{*vyι6<ett kCZSutD ֆ̱FhLM#4)ixi4(ibqMHc4$;WۘfA+h>) 2՞kJ1a5613h-j#9 @wwrٝB^Ж֜+jSoJg>Yz6酞zѻ貞?K{.5]ʋ6veC.[ޮ3~'7|pHy/-/yh'[)*'8q%EiѦҿTWۜexQ><R*b?=<%4񗆇ؔ] Oe?+{W mz?LB*PzYS*UCеj;=(/FeG"_Hl+U<:9S[ۭq rZ.Ӣ::G &ԀԸ:9OB-/I uz=i ?ʈyh([jFh!H?>_:Vy t< ԅ:\ϱ<$_t$t V$۫ƿކ~_!dGү?dr@r6HHr9 v~/ΕWZϩ73'"dfߜϾt[W&2>?8g2L Ƨrsw-h~yG>_7hu1>7h~A8A_I)O7a*̀Ad|0h^\*}PDQw uP/ u_d"kP߇TXa5Hu_mrƗr4}[^N[E࿐=L#ݐt Hy6Wxw0_ɷ}! Ve6kBs09Xp+h/KC=G! ~F4#94ƼYOCplVcp@(ds>e|?ߩh7r{sE .%}c3+{{8J_qb)ʼn?#O(9ؐ+-G{$'I㳸1lir:a AV -?Z *-?sZ};\Γ >grw:pWD;W ]cN}x  K p]UճNW;?'N~y75n)]i-,̸ԟ ;)4F6 1.[yƎqk)<'lhSW[Rcݢ/;Am gdfvs-ϙQjV=F4ktOzZy}<ǭ/=;OOB%(42=񳧝 nv#IsicZ57R^s:uOOAuxu´bJy_mJ5DNANPq:@:F/8ڽvKho QCyVo7ݙ)mJΛRԵ=tnNwYV/Sv6^C'Apdg0eIjE4E3=CϙMzfӊ{T<:9kFLi[=H7{'^|_BmKvV0tvVRJ% #׭X旆ÿu]sZbTqιz~\}`39 ܗ$;n+| _ǹnzS:Sk݌v{cmYoM^Vsge}+!#DS;p{9dB3问i^dq|#Nj_q}pfXoG{ )(߃Y}\ o$m]Ov54r M ?rB,þ} ټ6/ Tεr][̍L[GŜbsl>%8synxOSY'[=,~vwmpjw8{{7\kx-$F1gwvJ9_v3^ _9U&Q(U ݃ Põ܃ 8k 1ov4~g+|+_հ9u>sF 1 TKY SqAEˣϥ8KRLGYgh<U&کlTpvN))d0 Tx RO5\=x<dG\*t16%Qe\$bqG{7Ϧ7]=S_/8y6g!^Ѐq)uW>ը..s.׺}Jʢ04חbkH{ ZC;l×vz>Z1>b -6-RlmȮn,8/Z3 s3>q^C[Ng~(8]gvR2Rw;eb%1WPԩ/ oz5H^ ޔM7=a!pbrV aPowJ=L=|*VyC_~9(藮nF2𱌧S =<6eI0f[ |+r5i7ç9 \]t.is$Wi֜6#x8fL֬-TBFZnn_-A+j@t Z_9N<8}UEkvPu5$z{gd %mo-9<ZW^֚'8~1)/vu5u(f8}Veg4/PTD?Y?7西Ѫ5$ 3@9sJMe~ M!ev-19FS4r̄l#j7 f4Ɠ9V:޴δ}jz[?#4Ć*T>k)~.@w:ě=mmMM߇N/\ŚNoӵ`c%|Rmֿ1·Kt. -O=~{6zl#].r=vQ=0ߨ zS_/8G#>8.8Vҹ;X]9U׏kDX|)~|>O?>O;GMON[u\^O m܏o~|2/ӧgL r.lv)j嵋ZwB;.+7QO?ֵқ֙~c]rYy(E+p ⬢vnˆ0DGa>qږx'ɎιU*9{;@{I=dKCn~ݤf_~?kAe(Ǹ]BVyU m UcjAkhAL]?d+)N kG2sߣ*؎U. eUlU]?Y≯!$A/ձojc>(l\dmmu\z3ĈT%#C=UP|T;xj%>wv]j=Ꞹ(L.;ۗwˁyLΓV.7D;|Q+4 M5I+-R?j=t$9~2:#suRܧRmﭬk 03yoKmW3,=)k޲|/]p`!sb+WH蜘\f_GMĨ ԥO.^ׁ UAsZ*? 㩢ƺvoUD_OO5Eq\kE7Fw MdMZεW)ld>RˢO)L @4$-4A ٧Eѷd5O PGcDo-*P*֕υmCQ}szcWNOI9]BskI]ԫVgHeHZIUSztfi }  )֏֗$;}P׎e>S[E@Hy/42m=?g9V:ϐim$z#H$q cXUկSuזu{mhj.80&qƵJ[9E1=hZYJt^q ã9&Hͩ͹÷yhg~Ecsb~P/AӰ5 Ys6#`:S`" /֎~n~y^`7G~{ג\c~ڼ qmx}%?&?2s\9ݰ63ެ }o_w:g$b n!ע9M$cBWi A:/^v.0^]$G p|נ ? dB=ź$5(v$;}A쁼h2oYƽywY9_鼺Fku-w7|?b}PYqpb,W}!dz/akǫ^/vgS-O sxv93i1I뱑=W}7{uzzՅPQ,= .&d^__ڲfTb,wN -JK[ӒHvZAkK)̷6:A7=&B[y#Y1a/:]< n璶`x{E}|z_ :^f/ 4x0=!At.6Ii{Aϱ˒YǦNl3DH.&._ 2klؿsa>,`cpv!8s9Os|4ʽQ7/7s--ݫܫ>egN^eU1\} ߈ZZκk'&uԽt9{/YKYOڎ|eVg$Y̧_OJxVï`-Cc|z:ïu'okȁu6& ;@ma~3mf Iv6 uVѻɟdSk g}})5O}] 74Ubo'{?ws]sj%;`Zgi_#9X3$#.7əggÝiφ_Nl$7IZ'? ܀۝ML ]#8W&>fljewh[cQ;k߀8@9i : 9ky8'Awv}z̤ NcZm>A{ٮQI)|!f90) r 3PyIK:9NIgxuH܃Nn|rPd+2_eh3KQ%rUAu5A ЏP*1.ϱ^z:ӿ9[--%7ӈzzphL @*tgܝݙqږǬcC|_wCkqvzlL\M1H̸?C5\&r9P15=N&C6N@/ gBg׎WKD׊W^Q*Lt4*u} F0Pr,ϮquaQ C#` I0 ⿶gȮ+@ \4x#tz+n2_}cٌ̃g|\CXH܋bb^Boyr9^^z\ {οD;oGk'8# Li>-6L+WB:b_M-9Wc3Hwyu]6LZN=_ ]Hc]gr.>-Ű"ž|ſϝ]=zt8䞻 S/M|=zckX6^ǭA\Ɖ5ZS vQF.&}'Nf l_qmzie3vyc5]:F )}f3ffx-3'` 8mc}=O$MC 9A~{Cf JvG諒~?Hvs$d( 8 ͳSIO b蜛Zeמ֜FʁE/Uw/e\c~:;*7odZLƸO@2{n qBPd|d|7 op-C>H.}u-b4^ڽ/7P:/Iw/ A r&5!2G^KePCeR9[e+_%bTd;zJ!&<uSPfW'o5Ɂ˷ׅ!$Acm쓷F7¿F>ykD$EEu&TEМֿkOGsSX}qR"ݸw1i޻}߁Na2hOB0&ZZCh KL4}ʃsА=D\Y3«y΄kX/s6hl$NsӢ9Qs'? ܀۝sSL.9ͻӢ+3ÿev0sB ss/8wufn5~]ju&ռuXQkމ߸>y^5ÇF7߶$GO6e@7gl-7nz~o-xc{zviiwm-mXTo^}=c=Cp"Џ/Ofdqe1kW5 k~Uˇ̏9h86  ƃ#Voۇ9չ9]c"'Eg⚙|;Ձ@k|rYóXoN^y z `! d)/¿E 97^w]o}OQ5u;ի@s _ѯ[wGHi&65q׳m{޵u | +Xg+`m SMNy}ֲ~?`{j-| ss*bt<&kkvx/9{^[_ƣ%8cϼ'?r#pur}W}ʃ~o<p1Gu:ͭNc5WcRux/KCIwͱrS^w3TT]Mdd'I$;]$(HvuHb 4$ѐx0U)ؒKq:vRXڎ}S׶T Xol?:VGh I 9|53_YAT^=/i:)VԵtgWzC' >6a v~dZ/v+XOLZ((9> LɌ';9vx<,!kOgxx0xma ,ia&}M^߈w~<S׫0Fq(5{,xLXVXFl-eHZKg Y7s}\.YBЧ-&y`.HKOvߤvya),cl~C7Ig~Nm7]wP+#X 0 V×P*YVs修ުD%V} /Rfb\G:|oa'; Hߴ/8?>=XlgG T~z^uŵa3JnF Eek vbmV~·5zziJkI0|.).ē1qupS<S:.3qږ\/BGGOF3|h5|4@i>z>z^ z̟ \k ټ90.\uM_?nh+hώTrcfhS-V*e0XHCX䟐 M7,("YyyF#i Mqh1y]GP"!HuOqԲ ]Pp|eblT{K#50 c3Y=+yiGkF-#h.R|U#լԁSIڮ$N#y$;COÿM^N{zE֋swǏڠ6 =9 ݡuVK_@qq}[Ŝ^OޡOk.9khT];˭BеS&M?d,\KpkS/+ڹkG2 29\eu6 ̄0$na~O)֟+k7w;[I߇.)Qy]sټ˝-֦Uܙj9P '8ش]Yg?KuH3w0޳ ;#4|;y圥³5ϟYYnPqbμ(sk[5vBݟݛ5'Yӝam>klݠ6 k; ymxLm][X rڞ5HYp5B 0r:=Opul$Z/q- 8^Z3>x e<ȿvtT:1X_RBx#k4C$`b|?ekRY@ gzlg] F;o'1gxt2>0Hg ,v.._ĪO'#c>@`Gg|"X,>$15-`^a^4^uzyp}}ZfM/Rlow8n| }qr޲wu YZB.Ç =S>9>s^&ft aۧfi"vXݓ#?AZU[k}S)gڮͬc&\x'|_Y_14'yun 9~#BnxLXVXm#4Qu F'&9NמH)(嫓tRw:6ƃr\Uص㵦:(+ @7}d|{n׍1Ʒ;s7u<8s Dp+市>1y1 Sas}b O3ݐWLhu42Ek^uLu08$w;Lݞy:C*{cU}EP6U|t#>1Z+̎|Ku&ޅŌ?rp+,B#Y tXӱ?kn,c{ƥikk "!D3W3Ϻ%ij=b{u).Q.FN=Gtu\e& lMt>}G*<\ٯ Za&Ī˝qGHNu:G?&$[w~o6 mWECT~8@Rpć UIpU"S mM}8f7MeB*6B'A\dqЏ:I^Oᓬ u1xuq").E/v.t 㬿_չ1`;ln8erO/؃mp&^:G(|(={s_ҿױ:rxrx}\3ck`.>}w>O>$$g9 ?_WU֌l`*kQkN۩c~V; mrC^(`Gl^!];;Et΍7ћ!H=>֫I[4u/e :P  ąٷ"{<y.qPQ5g-TB2:h&')I|h!].!s`*WOB'x ;hu鞫>5Ӄt}z|3Y_39W٦u,&0=5JN[٭c7 [can @:|cr1:VjzKcoa= )>$c=YMgOUgΣ+<<l;ߣv0EmD^۱ a+kOhìoGSUQ->/ _/WW0ήKGK5{~#>M5ucHI-&C{A^DUAAzES/@oG' ߑb-E,DA@% Ȯf@D\@fpYDAY߫ɡ$T[R$RňRBܫ8^*jץ狡:Ԅˠ#uqKSzKS֑a}ҔX*z] ) hv=]j4ףMp+C[nu@nJ 4Cf̳>H,o?M?5؜p7d EX#u㔧bMSJϽthS30(xJ.r'} '5OɁlĚp/> >Xt)C6eۭ<Ѝ.lg)c)QHuFNo' tz23!h{XtLDy=Ӡ4bF);1hC\ ;綠W ڰ݆Iiv'^{ZC&wLR2-pٟy9!|;T;,@u|2K ~'cogv `#af̀`s:>a-_DE`v~zWU$'|ŹvnV-SUIoQ` *? X.z-|Tפx. Uۇ$^'qx~ûϕDf>V;WAe0}";#wbm~D R>s7<=/7[)TM/a/6~]y$u@"+EX< "iw͝#NQs$]A9c\ \5ӕtL5J;DQ_rJR{:[rZ9kc2]I|+r͙Xלq*)SQ԰ZuufXJvduED;Չd::Wӗ|^a5WP .5 |2tVjvs8̷:Zzn@DyC[f9ހfamp; ^lЭ 𯁣[Ϸp5y{9'f?M\V|sya]V7K*yfiڡR-ڑӒm酏a# ͳ|k:-a`{ntK^-\u摒QKu>Зޗ>gls]_|p!,= G_ΠHv2ލە:p z'ta;>r@Gx_/Fscs朼7,>6@uePc5^kgl3>$Xr(̇ O9d9~2F‹lS@I}(J4Rh,4]4{POUe1ZZ쨥h$bru19;QK 1ކi;ji ocڱY'‡cC#[m-H}'l-5H} 7f Xlf| ]X}x 35XPS-Ĝyz2HLViM6`!z'$KSy0"l.R<5c"!H}Э"rE;h V/_uRX'D&j0{ f%jek6nkܾQ=6Va'JVصs}_t\sh>U=!=?Gpnۆak^\pV>I[bk| _j@<XY[,i={̱J|ݙU1s}6}y=ל熩E"~'gy#}>ep1_sb\U!1%_,]srܰ5b>S[a5[^cϊy[^?|ss`OcK䥹QҼ4;Q؇R7ǰ36؅z]TOv1^]'E;յ|NTCG>WᓎWXTc UpH:)iu%u;:e6&~ꐓWյp\f7hVbw#\W+Wz|3yfmi)>^oާ֛a畻o[B+Hw>hMnMo~Ɩݦ >mu9_ב oHL:r#S ȭKJ9_4fif7ſ7X=sfe(i8g8ޞ^׆ا9{:m{G8]74b(QB;wwĽ 9N9N-^ zB,#ˡ[~^z[ ga0Hm o^@T!'t#o;;|3\+i L IWwFprj8 G%=Zzh= _0I$ 9J zEK" a3,?y  øV;K/q2?L^փ~3\4dAoϦtcy},%^[B,0=4b4 Fpl p֊#@=ߍCoڇ]O΄q0sx? 4id4;8-C>nP>|^nhWCv2<)m(/]MFک^G V6ÎK. Ezu^O =\i@Ɵgd4tϪ4#%66>a|4qQm$t`bO!-÷P|ZD>-rBu|xLo.,El/R)6vlğ%V%V+l-̓i0^ B,j-|X>l%2ބZ`iwX sk %4״vNؠzauoT;nfZ5_V+Ys7?as?`|Oa#li}柌bѷ8 It;OƏ1nƷyLW {aZlo-T6czWҞkwO.Я{IzWrOKdrO79VA%꯽2џ2zc(4)"џv"h cu^]U x=t0S5LJ95P5P_sٞ3OP\S|&/iytd#V' r@3N؉kRݴ5Q'3>$u]K~|Z.[?vX&F, ?O@D Ap6>luk|f7f4fh5<9ywAMLc>pe;}Co]h={}^WaHaB܇8Na^(aqJ(B|/+ry"ϓ~ f:r{~OٌLrNܰ 9u^.&Otʛϰ>eVA>|opLc3~e|Msk}p Pk> ^@<>OB䳽%M\4A)m#f2>lMl׍+I͌o&_Y`l/s0&oMBIXYg1^WxS>: ڙ$u~LRFǰUU (ȅD?X_OR|g akͬZ,Svqlg\$1`ݓaETfa7IUd1QI"40\U2 س~?O#w?@I>#?9LJ`t Uy]U/BXzukf5ތ?ڡf}',77ׯ'_r/"7kz'99Ic ȧc!j⻚cV^-7s:`N)b=:"긷VVNgl (,,_Q~&Qb1=~sQ#\ |vv'!v'HݩookJrr(f?M45wju{\oNQFh{f(I1lϯh֐Pg$g9k%G C} [ue\r/g8<}Rc` d{ џ~Ɩ=CYeEƳΛ9DU_]a@z>\6\.+V8ji:먥ZZBji:ji!jRϥ.ZZ8_ad3cJAұYg z}렐|)tq Y!}4t+d|=| %Hҡ)@mcgu!k5נ=SߢTwqa^3~7CB_^o/OS:ߧ;{! w;]S3<[5IЏywO1AtI˺>$~A~v|2PkoiDEͱh~$22^|k!.exm_{}K0Ʋ=?Gkf?LyO9{~ ~Al4x#HO=I U $ګ~[Qo4 | P>N9ѾաxG\ 4 tszWA=.{Pa5ӳj4,Bo/eqXRC\Be c183`A"_E}ImwاFdKGvnvE G RQk`Pk:boGmwVb16z⼞c抐kP~#(Eo;FFϰZG;A.rcpΞx}wsNIJvv~0.>8(H6rLi1~;aӿ_pN'@>rv N_BISTA8Hy|L#9G~C;9{|3VG5x5X=>U罋#u *HW.+"+#y b#2bXj<罚Z'j",'9*EZਥZ@ gS,}?90 $8TKƿZ8#'` 2ncl4p6 $F3>D AmC)6ݦ8tXL|9|/rv09'f?5x^)j9I=J >uo{ٞ?uOGtс*Tt ?!Ch-4IjwDGOS?4|줩h0dRNk۫;^jo0EG' :C `>) ECtDߎ9VXMGȡxsIfeyT yل٪Lt"H;ILQ"a&f{:Gkf_?,V壋U9o/VE#<# Tto狕/@XϠO9Dȱ&8Ef>Vk;|/1^G9zOYF6FwJW'UrW++Uѷ@Vە A|dS)ͱB+Tv ONXYO@nyyxmOa=Y&6lVH*tZ!m=qa [s򢛩 Rgƞx]ar*%g"׏>D|su:p"r>1||2ᘣގ#%N218_֌vRKHglYk:7R?T?"їD64~}j}X~Gx#wBn@gOȀ#/a0q0}bu)1Y'$|ۓgF&}䱝y~Ɩ<|p}ɣ: Ʌq1 mc2Ԡdg|gW^vxl}<1>s|˨|5'"ecsZy:?rt$V;ldd%[և-M55,?0W-R~ZN}-۩Z׎Zji`'삽 ^G-b|}<% 듰u.}*zp|:ĺGCCu9tۇn?_pxne<w9Hs<o'8_#>YX 35Q)j0wml2l?`Ԉ*l|2^k\kC@sh >{C6ͽl=ds!{Ž^sYiuw36 ZB hR웫Ri~h.I'CavSv>6Fa=4vQ5ve#tj͂gzzr/r/9{J{5KGC|k!.Cw|1`&6)5[Gglg܌];7bՙb |2`z @9= Vwpg{9Dȱ&8Ef>V16s16Z5q9`:aI5JRoTodg%ȍU*5TJH=Fvv%{P§ )ǔXx!!BGӟ6`+|G}G^}G.o%^SXOl֡䳉1[kCGҟ VHo[O\7fܢd/C_(ރusv ٹ:!#;|^;WB#3좟B]z^\o=.Q81q [R7PE;1îKoOG9oO8 :+9 z@4Y[AgU~*ZK5\Sߊ!{. 8.?7&/_\IE}*Zܪ16 `_s'G?:.Zf< "5AcM)O5ƫ9WUw OU4V@-v*ԁt[HVl?=Go}%Mm&L-.E{!8mEfs-yg akˬۯՏFo (ZF{9;CiDot'a6 P/ 'a漢<¾&QEX<6X&VDOh/9Hy݌f\3[3-ǢтЁXD'֍텝4l}S z;سHfNX` d@G@ʹvd0A 21]D2to|z u@=EZ4ߖf4Wamrs=\m19s[Ky3gҟ?8=K/Hd'1#a H6pLi#篹|n/v-cֆKh5^l0sdL<&?` +obo&LU|3ub|汀Z^ o Whkf?GkZ;G |͢נR cΉ.O|z{}$^X͕۰<5Ogc3Cq䄄^\urc=cBh{fIfx7%yNn%gғ{Lں13aiL.7NNɿ&a3h @GvXSxzxj6B$'F0,ǜF@b:0G9j#AH15vk<;O '5Dltrgˁ>h'9rc#x}Dl$<,6.yc'$^͑Cb99@꤈}3CW"*|4:;|rנּdc{aL؛ⅰ$ -^FE>/:"L_OO~2;iR@w5<iI $ׯ1>fdsW-`|>w*(^JϢ7RkZ/?`#oڹ,jQۨ-'˩r46WVG/9 >/X|k%/h9^5P[NL n'qR@wInL~RHvvGmNu{4ÎߑWYG a̷! }I;(7Hw5vu7[a-H"@Ÿ D0# ,QFP@Af/2""D@^ϙC$}w*Ur]~֫&G"\for\^9(8?NzK^)- ّ2 R& ˸/0d|)oY%e12T)ƪ)JWĿ ٩VU&W9Q(dG,jSAe+p4vC)_FDAq6Жy3 _FFk݁ܵFP7O$gp}F-6ۡҹ?0Cgz5.EG{]a#dX`&Ohg b<$;GM~/">ȤkMu&*z*&9|>/9_29)[:s`M, [c smaO{ 6r10r9xNU.U(EN/^I/~a*ڇύrH=fd9}Cۨ. {Є>×Kl:ΗMܫQpA}ҽ8;z)֧ҚS!twɟA~{Ap Ni8 ͳ)4?O m3p.fȵ"K;gĽҼNzS:SR-)Nɒ#"z(G90, `H8i:G`O~'=SOx6bgDLUӘcJ$cMΣ9ONV/89R7NI1dMhm=`5NV-88wjJPB0PQ;ңeV)tٜ8ܞK̓sio$=80K)/5\J NތHKȀf$ս=ySZszov25"׭sv1{=#*Z ԧM=~7784ҍ5zBo{v*:6lqy6͎Lݴ9ͣ֓M?KzjD-%?S7{{=Wy.f5 =szHѾGxUm՚PO"nT툥?O@cx ri.%ǂ#OLL$8r4h8RsiM\l粶rṬ}v3>'0f |A\Ϣt4=ydC?1;2 MaLm^bi442oc!Ǹ< F7B3h 1N]o~eYmks|jyp=hx뇲pɷ|}o#Ƥض0bKk{Vkt,Λi쇯޻>{a?v3xokQ-]1U4 jj1;MI~2^ru~3 <ϩ_QcUkW%qHk7Bު@e|uIOd? _Ҏ~n߁DH~~ml菮 W!w?=Qg ԭ4l &弁kh56R|p4缕5!kjTf\uq)w|iA hm}mŚTf<ʮSl}mWRG3_}#ݗH Xkj@U{5ؚ0.Wh&n:k )ƖʸvNݎv@س2yGkG[}q3!&e6hC41WhBt#;?]ͦ:(:.R _^EO©oPzg.Ϣ5xG'j9Tvulf$3˗d(?NϳY, !7q?`~kRS75W{]\Bm'Ɵ scW1Ibyڪ5JZWi_ bLf15 =\j+j.yWr|On䳦\_K\_F̎Ӛ[ `%ɷ)7W bY8—` otFm$goK֒ɷoc vmaSK>uۧm_nۥvnpr ߌ A8 Aqbr!r|sꙇ'W)kcqހU'N=M26BI{Z ti))[Q MF qNwz'*禡lxJN1r~#M)s5572[ $AF}y;T>"]4{g;1$3%0cħttͧ@S8Q?!llfcu9\TFQlԉ٬.F/|eDI=7>"d{vPԺ7?轇Ғ(:]Kl|M>TvulzͮjVB khra5BOȃ0z5M϶2Xa6^Tΰha`Ϣ_(f*W<v(iSC_~ߡ ImX$.ɠ?.j6&֡dgV< oMf|3|[`;ɷ)9[mPvs~+O `|K\~KMA߻a'l3Wv?Wm'Tosj?zOxC.ϩ_eT_٨hD@O/J?:l^ǜ*V' T5 Ml)q9u-E'gY+\KF)%=T}3ɒ?ǾdB8}I2F}hr=ܧlx) h_!GЁAEQq~F>hmƓ@4^͘S14K#ɎʹULF %g0GmdiAÃЋ{$eWǦu8HCIB0_in Ny[lk`I5H}M,j ܟGyby(^oJZrnCϡn*ɠ?.GyI YSa?X%xß ^G mT>:ka +lk*|\VkqmDqԹX=L`Lw$'bw"kh"sLd4%ӱ-ٜXOpPuvҚҘ(6e{BHxY:p NLwPϔ_?}{3bv+oog${r($]bxXPAlVaN) װ4υlۯA9lf9b/}\nqUo'u8x<rƱ$&xƺh=6korF0ngAKhya%)[:js\|hc5ԞC AC{h'4;v54{-6օR@'^㤛Tof@{lgNquچ6׆$;*VC;JsJ{=K{{L;2 eC_a?h)hRt30sR{n sSN{RtugkPœ S{BO^KdO<ƺ<Ƴ'G?0:u810&lNaNɷ ÿq Q9wZK}KQKW/b駋Q׽?@Y#y3Ff/'j5{EXl/|1R>c{KD;([cQߑ=ǚnհ7|ހo8/\ؼN{~#X 1dmhm辴x^׳Q;/k1_{V^WN٫Uj2osУGJ6{]nf_$ib=;=aύ& VUbBl[T-HTOޏwl:YܫRZ(^UIcH)걛z=vǟNϻ]޾.yk>ckSt\a,seI\\Bi|:ͳ4>}ʖSNU.U^&&4\H87T=q^R*%NUS5r&S-q-6ᏼ*%k* P P0[Ɠ/)qh')ޟbJƐR=OKR+R\BTN2~#4ځv.ykx+kE V@U_Cs*m"l*;AY5XЯBAth,?ιhs3* S-fIKj+uv$>[Yڕ!,)k}+k_{}<sJy Wʃcyr qǒ|SG\bK/}Pshĕa_cSvulzqsş[r[bvkqsH:h ױ+SfH3$}lbsSۣ44Oqq,'W<?΢;8x.lr?F;ljڏ<>@&4߻: b\ wυzpC ~KyβhHvZ녴ly.ץysЁ+C`0dǐꢵH\FXY)6{~vWsץңҥO.TNAt-Kh}t8j3MJv`|$=l$$Gh 45$;y&);N'q0 ds*sJMb|Mpw21;ʖ蜫3MN&W4Nflxyj2d3{%Utֿz[b7Nϕϳ0c0)[:v MAbrG>h~ϣ&y.s|C[\4?J_ AI3+]4_xh^\תxSSQ.u^&_R.u_:Υ\꾎#]꾚Ju_[ށ#Kc]{]>ҩK|} [s0?>w >uۧ@6 ;K{A^f|7vY/|..9|w]ҿTh)` o>نy;+C?zV:]#]3|̮>g"\-H h7:>l#1,ka?s~?d7w Q0i(?^Gٻǿ"qx]r_\q(${ !/O<>nCon}pSf6 '֏#bs\OQs( !+W55#ɷ%w9Ά)0%cd: O}^>%ؗk :.Y5Sʧg[ż3xf =Ͱ4#s`OeOQ\J4).?#&=f3=C>3ޣtw[ZU:gB<=䇰֐5x _>_hjK¥l[9}ޡ\E=*5ڪӼ5>DNIȑn=] >)}DMʃ>|E·bUlW ]6!=Xk`&G7u@M~[?@ރ%#&ScfH$/ch 7BSh ͖)֔&Es*Zsşjӡuo/%(?Y)A)tQ8XԷE;)7nfVONC`HHԳ8=ROt Z@H63SUsƛ_s!Nsk V֝]nЄkJ5iFN%U}t_k.:uᴟonu$֢ͭ3u ]5[]o~׺.! K[ߡB#h'9*yԥ{NOrZReI1 CA94kh2y1>0F@U7 $Gգ0r8H&HǬa09Zt#Po[U:ɪig+jA48J N0\TSt̷Ҡ9 YD~ź9]+x&-`\|ƥͷ:3_ n;஘MB_꼄kAoX킯L+Z"g"b_bs*1WU.:^øk[k|w|9ŶqU7'n}kЃͩozb[V֣wV  hyJP辥|Hu6r&;c'sDC_1|Cs}(U.ճ@4?i2ydj q҇w?2~>|Eɑʯ?Y3?&iZSv?'(s <ǜo_!1Hv W' Yg WzdKޮW]pr 孈;[8*zƯv9oG[]M )*8Saiҿl_X)|LLh`=J!H9 &DћNr$Do Vc\Qqhgp'0GbMcq_hNv"hkh3hih45!%lĘ[RliѦ4la+ i;-*?1椝q/vпǟGN*`X,d`:Lx xuRSM+,gMZU#T|WVݪ ! IЀߑl6`NUCmƣ%e'G˅uVPSd v*v;YչFKm]b@ @{X5Eŧ"nP AC ՠZQ7ﶎop+t暲Vv`džZUAi%!%|!l-$ZK廆bpڏg~!}S|sp sStRQ.uC0TMy2I6 'ѯ'B̅0ds.m29#<2B|)YOUNrpK3 Ӊu L0ԚuyX>}>XR$ oD+:6Rߧ\fB۬c8=G|kUeB&>jaJ*?^ >`=m Ί'1 W<6 S5nV#ns}I=X'@Zwy8N9(u rM]Cp8= Su4v.KSy8#"ABAmg=98<[mC޾'~K?q,>R-/(~,1uڔzrSxBk?:Dtրx'ɽ2"HHjhA:&(7A bTT `D!"E"U"ߙq+++k}k2s@fgGk5#bFX*\s33K9}qWkG3Ȅ0&22~\?8ɼyWDd3:ffjA[%/B_ V נzP>(5QStjDLs -~56-B<Q Se&O?kLx%cL<\zr|a2MKݷ6Oݺ4|ͺ\HO\+iԨ{GcXY1rd ̆i4֢iqXuuyͺX^"O3WC랲Cuf=yac|[Y$7?6hֽ uo#q"{4{~4{1zk,xށߑjMft۬Y6kֽͬ{㫏``ۡ@ok?}_nho{-y۫YCK}]ͺ߯3uQ [Ѧ}fIמ|="}&_}y uy κ1"\ܛ]Uι_NC6|ϱ>x9pxU~~S7 7t%AR2PngXRl֧J[*5+e?&0Xl fTdO6+@\DԏX,&6Yf( 3>){-d`(Wg e0g7&"p 5?Dy|(ɇV9o0 P|jd~_>q|~9S۫sCybͪ`@̵êmn#O»:cU8+p?:䯱2_*Obm{jUZ:R?:`{%_` Gr~gi>8$O$'S86Hr[nǩ_i8 9KUI[zC5~(v?]KpAq[[q[_薇췿_:Nï1]AU{o#"LM lb^d1Cv9Ӱ˻{ }tI$7[TS v^]|]ϼ ʺeNYtRs|cAQxģ ~=*m#o2CMHd?㉌<%˳[gAחmyN_M˖e}ܗ+{ȨoƑ[RőoR Wφy'$B]#ɬ/蕇_ϽX*5"^{[M[T➢{&MyS9M5qoo)hބ87CM;hޞvigq;2U'q ]5~^]Яo4~낟C/  iHܟއu+ im;[^U"jOKPC_u8džPcC/e_m#-;Qb(S`k,(IΓtK 9¹g2 zEky\>#$ǧa<3`Hu9MY"41e'ͲЩ9&x?ޮ%6^cl{Fp*r{Y8.Bno!m͵|48|6 jWS9X/ _6pΫ Ϣ?Jq _,2*r^({w==kW7WwBmhѽ2JdپA=[`+$RR~e+״ub,֮pIC4?gak /"yl6 o=ylr7vvk='Ԑ_|B}"}J>|NG|#aK]=>tޥ<*LS/*"e8G9=Q}Nop?odyx}t@5')~HqIs-|>"_ g{#Sxݍ#OWj|azQNw$sSw:"_){ TΩ{uEȽr.\w]oN#Vq@IJ_T<{S:9o)K;qRNth`:pC9z|i7أDG~pSތwn7tq U(ZgR;ͪOY8 jPjA2#O$S-dtKIN#W&;Y_@chJ4uʦ5E&藢[ >P6eM@{[ڡ[Ivf+)@]6zb=UP3-dhgZ]x[o]15Re6_aMa?T<{tak91<9ߡ3a LBI\OG>Uөlg-;31lO|]FkqFKk/?d=htle 5߶^as3X` K||^7@*`> e"*p>z5Hjy2 Y6ߑd͜JnYoD Q1r3^|J><^8N^8l=JLSC?7Y3`8/3ZhRXJ4o3.a/RZO{ڋ_ ǨRQc%۾%?pB)8Ej=afv5$Οq/'m'l;iM}`<~m'Wq>NEȝrg:Ae_|q`ElE."W~o56M{8OҭpOn-ܼ$Y/g/yk[ep=,%!A~l9%/iO9WKsB9ﲗ v1CE8+V9r[g*z+լX1wx{i[)66~=xQNU{Y{,Qe!Ƹo3j] dc}lLF$KIN•wWzm`?c6VFi΃P$Si._/Ǽ$_d ;L$t;Iy7)ujC+yT\_I6M356 gNlgr} a}zy>>5gc'EaG:qg|ړ?ã1ra}Moj=9c#%}+lg=xI8ˋS]?ggӨ ~6AϦ.r?JL1?O 9Pkz:1flSm>sm&ڳ\9Jc{j!<2w͕cJ{),%%UmE8®7ݵji5$Y{"&lkO$P3b7l  ]s/| ?yJg6>z@G/O51TG$;]>^"NSMTGo}5}GM,kK܋USzN޹6.wsKSj4.w8b65uq{yZ{ "X _i84RٌK l!Y5kpz1Əg/睅+p װ=kNcI֭)uKƤ˸d[.a.s\j,?+~]a\/wTΨ-6wLG߷LG[AƣA0~liP2/͜dyx} :8lI xGg#Q}+ʑV+x7l&S%n ox ?2)3$U"ʠWrR>bo շ^f[S3uRk520M-h-o3M%˳=w&Sʟ~:e:4`E]ա:TsT'pܿ)UnأnZL-SKmUʳZJ]ZJR:h?e}Z >ZÜR-P:[wlt=]@Mݝif/|` 2БO m z D 2O! ãoit6Ht&ézݨw)*>S5Fj0֊`EʯʜS MU?*`e/Kk IdE ݐwn~1ֹ`{䶵 r$l]pul[XgD1.:lfQ8?&K5BN36g|_9{[[ߋr1ގMt^C/@~ 0bx?t뇎~NH59:yܡZp<RzHc0`,'3>3Uy85<:.Cd7â?wApd`t{~=GҋF`dPdpJr2>ydCY1~a쓊7o Zz:_@1u|tm/8Cc W8OI_Ę?iz'It t5ݺU\`|.̇V+Sq z-F YL}*9~OO[Ck%D_z~<[+aqy Jsz9-&/k֓I24<kXkr<7sr8ק' Fa&׷Zr.Y_''dyx~~]So[w[z{KSo]z۬Y7[u-:r=>fB@.yk_/P>b?fsl&^tqI}&5qw_Wv&5q8A8 G5q?a!YzCWGpDWmswbr^{aчyUM.Z=6J~ㄦוxlW7Jه!`1]9]v`y.p?⇿s1FXt5O"(ZxlW נ عHvPI(eؿՖW]-Ff(~)[I/7u#@_5yY}0,gW;k+ P;UN_x'@u#g<5&>7`f4GG8OrOpXC3?sCy1g@O{p?}~SW{]ZzBSK38M-$h\K54\?yl\m㈹:ڙă|G99Zlllf]tmW a ,%_r#\R|iH㷥i5 R>$'9C %p:]i AdP!^*B^ԱP{c?Xci%[MBơPf:oN>muЋ>P *Y=CRbguezC_peV*@sJmU~{@׌P=hFȻ{]:[؜:VsZ-qɶU()NAfc\/wF35ȝ1lk-Np'Iɾt|]nГV[gJg׳OFVZH[;2_w?f܌mK=!1)o3K5W*xFsڋB :[.Ml"86Lkcg [FMA&W~r]ڈrHrϊԾO+vvgS #a0dN?3>8$998zD|5 YVKkjoL4|L$̅,mo-o".?j qԿ ~5jO٩E`[b ŞԢ/Vb3.y}/gً*d ߠI~ 痟M|5rU/2PKU$/PxwR]vݺ#ͺ1u]Ԩ{ߢn~P}_#yk[q`7'jֽ5>bG##)[D/kOcwkhiΕ\6o}>RHSW߷FPnCgbUy% [/o^&|i- Ie<듲CIVxIb<&kV6eCPg陸%Ai[39nʴFoR{űJffb+4kzx`&n֕- s_` CBjn̆O$UM噪7 7]ˢsko=6BY>zy}n3fBsM|eygq^ClmfM7sC}#-9[5En|mǻL}o]=|j|6.Hlmت)[kݏ! {a?ߑlܯ){ߍnA|wJ%!箣QG5}Z:AMg4zy{K-(e)8 QQoQLJoھ  G̕G:[-׶mw ۿc֚ڎuލ (Ks,I 4H(~q]ېAV桒N9(~Ye:/C^;QNI77T~xOuc(ݡO(JN?m9'#tĂ~e8͸lEIJ0*.^nx5RxֿNvtqIC4?p!7Ӂ*/7!/bhSrG//;MB)c] ȳ tt s 5t5Ʈ1~oHC2K=8qtezC_[*=8d&K"js^}HVn߻&#Ibs7bs*6Rlk9?Z8B--i ]~5c\=pl,B wtפOWb @>?>#LljrjrP%[//n?߷'ۓɁ>0ckzPR͕ ǛKC@r?N7&n)[$@%Fi[ F9(`c@[V(mE^y#|38فIƉ@lidxj<>@57<="u #Ami8 !=C^uTTgu{ =Uְ=~=*~wŚh[2 f%7D8OҭF+ΑF2(kC'#O51t!]41b$uq6쵄&n46Ķ:Pj@5PyW^Tn.l\D^EԿ;sq%:bILa|*]h*VKrkIT1h>IH7{BXjt[bt[ d>ޚ-6鉫` ^gu}.:}^8G`'5?N'Qsz#փ ۍ! j~Px~STlU7Cac(5FڑW#"sbxR ׈,}v<ɩHloāSFv4jBh!-R)i̩OOl DR##D9*v~=56(l 't#ヌ#[C`d'c8L39hSف/gE먇W4zxzXzX*aVia[]ke36=M=D=l&M=l,M=ϗخawuAM=`|G#P!N'<%Ϟ}ءaqM>l&>z/rͨ a 㢪@1/"Eu0>j}5|n|d|__،W`̎j !ˁ .l`޼~~g)({|*NBa{|ΉC}ʻŧ :;]ecp ʂrȻֺituѷ1(HN3!G)U99PX&F@cOb-⚛͓rF,tGJ}@lt#T/N`띣u2] ѭE9U)]O (;x6lœЫ6igE%/ !$ . =aPQT\pFGAQG@EeQQ(Ȏ "!a{~s<|-ORNVuu7tR;5|R= a(qj5ĭ1}0.105FmMF+MpL$nm6]~ݪu;8!vw$Y pM b8&SI߬[Z8^B\GQs<΁39yNxĽ:Q3uhQj(ڼm_ _6p6}z:,6ywD7oÿĜv)9<j, RR_^7픺&m'1.wއP-g-GkRw&'ҹ52})螚s؛yݝvډ>2JYc֗ VXca2FuƧ Ά8hk;t^e_=6 z/zP}fb@cij@Г)&ܻͽ3?`_sbcg3ߔULK=Ug09c*JLfE(4y?O}&%k/!=~9$>Z}0T :%lr9_}LLTn3'}ɜ "V1|b3'ž5kM=]KZWS͌R kM[cͰvN)-U6Tt5yNmek|$6f⣟%{$wW5dtKlgF5HIPc"}ʧZ^ڂ\9ϜFb?g@A OO HŰNVzELٛ1O!c$^NF=Hqt#( ~AkJ-qTowyWAOg~vz3gkdzKTt[4E|02 m#Πty=(=K CÕp q&]~zMܮR]J ]Z n; 6q&M'u?<,J͢¯J |b)C lx pM ů9pM S0NgG4w[xj_ybi ^+]jaT-ʾXZZhyNI_k7?)=G{σВl`yBʇثieePv5ƾt[V1홊2ކXk=h==ojG'8 r 2 LFZ7ILF_2%WMgC6rOixIjBask=I5 - :h+w|kޣZx+ SXM1-V |,9X'  &Ã0 6gqO`do 'N%?&g _G~"KfgO~^U8|ce5|#?H1ƾJ6kþ*gbPA1}丂6oJCj S'?-5mAO \cg8{^Vq_OQq Q 3FabryZ*q_s?O(t׎vJ_:}0e@n"vσσ=4*՗;|MD'>d"3W%SR&RKt;VIi0@j))(~=har f3yþ, /<_ZZQʘ*%'>6Z뺔nf_j3mC_96r~n%fg.AޠoЏmx?I6f)|Ƹ zoZO+P_Ƭ*ƶΙlݟw|k^3+cXK7_r]zۏ^ JJ{C{.۸~NjShyg{l F|EIL؛8{7~;z|]x}yl\Jס5ۯu1SÎ }`U$_ZWV9DSԔJzЦD[Rb?rrsV5pk?ա6 F/~7CwGuA*Wm0?T=o[6 9qz/F/nڼ.As \B|4L3?ĵU!_0ʈz/7c9c_^ofN86[`;xwau-3Ge-Fj#F㟣6_f}6ߌ6m49z4{9l)gl4v.븛|>H}lJ eaυ3t &n=[{'n]9[M܊Z8Џ6(Q\K<>p \R u!1&/ 4UNıq-U/ZϮ{9CV\ljB΀<O>>p*cBq' 8I:ݖ鏙'z<ɦh뉽{ͬszzHV\mg~hvRC${t=8H~jl 9w⨟48Vg{Է^x{cPCsj;A~ahAo7,V`z_P~bao`{Q$RW}` =ա@^o4e에|&щ~SP~:Xh<iggU ?'_RS)JT.yDKormA{g@tn 6{qOX_s'|7;}m{Yt30MZLnnK'A^˒qfjuwoTwoS7X*xscת˃ר0 . ^7uiCMO ޠep+i:}z=RH3YA+p7:V}HO+>%ޟruf3cEk''ɉA7=g7XN3wIm.ϯa`5+3/a_{C~3vo({ ({0B10ĿR GXo$YdkvSYbzP*ݡbbbwd;3_StV};88X:qA5Qǃy(=̄&Pc_(jޯ[6=Ja CfKc ]J3RW48m4>&P?V 5QyIjݙkf4+iy՚t^m 5u^UE+4DNЁ:jk:IqƩt,o0!ȇݳQ!YHC%p U;F01R|bLHb:1S҄x)5U%ǭnF`j򳲑) X3 w_!y=< p \W y=x~1AjG֝^3}}m便M=Xlffrbuu >9na5p.6a>,x!^v̆P ԽԅGx(4P*n_/=nf}m⶙}vs(_ZE`6;7'V ʉOy(7Em~{}vO]bn{7y ZBg%k`l%޻lt=$4 {B?&Go,N8Sc'S(a'r$;>aط~ص`6Wv~a4iM;GEsn]MAw!uS်<Uzl9<<\ WN3/, 뱻iu 7 hT}VZ_N҈k5Ncaa>X|E>쾷VX~vV8^%#0>L 7j: %V 7z*X=/C,,?. Ϯ˨3ᥰznX~v=3MMLL V0棋2]XA5i@z [\VX~vba2i캌g׺/\x_AO5'܅[? =.ˍNl_P'֠Ol'uMN!ǟ-ԉ6u;܍װ6ԉ]F\q* 䣪8E>޷ ێa?> pq9ԏT;P 9>NԜC)MXQ~i^E=bJc*y e"R;3R 1a ~Gm`刔MJZwzp}ڼJu:Fb]$΀,HD"9PG:r9Ku }㡪-@@v)GHo@(_ȃnjM"u:(R8 "mTn$OeH&4ḱj[$jtl5&z`I|u]J3'ъCկ{֋ьZ∼ּ Pu~VD<%a{խy9'i&ڼq<.Ѵ7i;g3zS_Ʃt,р)~WOb\19c2sxfp<3?u->搙6sucfbJVH}X>E<ܗҀu;%4XIt'uBc?c (<ROpOk&i3踛|q;=xؗ=[lfgQW?PF-/ƖE?O1Hs)հq|C;QWV@<i]*.3OH>[-x- %k#n=BƂLœ8#ۡݗrm̽{1a&ZWLtnvWwE;rz%GV—vqO3/;ݎ=-\>c ZZBjc?‘Xpڣmu*韉K[M&+7~鹴 XE&WἱZH˰[ ]Z@nX'0㑜|mޟ2z~Q̦?5:7β7{Ɵ/D[Ϫ]Rl=WK Xnr4g+7TNJVvW # 6?R_߇AjCXM>ig#o7Xc5lž=Yk_A<ZCV:~;:q;ۯE)';菔۽QWQv,Q#T^tF;ТpC%HU!4|H59yDg8+x\[,r RBӭ ܴt+4vl4>?V9{> n6 m4nuZ)d_["lr?9"̉|E0QLOuHg(g23/1yDolROb ,yr |YI27IƧߗevYGK LR .%75Xq)(LiNWb3@b{S窸9ZcjnxBL,t/:1 OpnJ7Z7_6yf< f%~~`3|@WM>hP"6RYe3Ϭ&|D=_a3Ϭhj?lɷM6zqluΚ5U_S`~b=Ԯ=Թ=d'`=׭žZl:VҺ}mR.\ zp]G'}8@Џ?/I%*aG h: EbW\^1ǨZO}xa+~t#u0zre'D+?4rJ]-6vuQWf\b:/F)MjWH$)2A`ooScp*=I6̽O_cmZk6n}%sVX<t=GDhMLk}mە ysxCI A(!Xhh5R# *`A Hj 2) ;/EsqZus߾9wgsye=,Եi㵦}_.P08b(Z(f\6ԋhBb10FS,H~P/Fۨ8a?(9.N5<8iEh4w4ө+W'[@>]W`XƘ=͠i)dA ȫO`̅ РWF s뿁vڱu{vZ-5Kj?۰z -#'KXs9nYfaӹuW>${ZJSuk3/6\?u/6jXN G ca̞~1{&1OfKe13S#1{'ٓؿ 8).܉cl[]޻O cBb̶<~em9@u!<\*= C Fr@j3 K^'7vRT3m*v!nW2^Od|miaK!Ű-?0]9 ǰ^7:u*ZCshJ׆J+¾A e Ԅ]jaZ]\[2uT\s u߃s^ cWMT?4 WŮ<5WYNmAO(gk~gSapiZ:NYMVI>J ?KiM\g Ϲ&cg S u D̟iL<8j$SeAjs>m:ir6m64יZUނoSO$6mg[bb ؗ; ɷww q{9F]j jRCoZNcP15]$!`}U]sje4rU_}o5{_n8\ U"&2 ZrC/| Ǩ 9}}"5䊦Skjk 4w+QWw]u;N[7X׸wYm! }ʭ +ZJ)ڸ+r }݃}IHQ*TMݍUCwRnyv.Bմd ZCxj连c89*@׆|\rjUwj˾.q{DnՃ0 ƺB*F^Ctvkg%$_(G U=nuOG۲}B +B B|';N%3,*q] +}>>]N\LL|uv. ]dWxM\+0w&W8Nepi|')?ziG역O}_XK ׺joړg>^8w >S2ؿo;8 Y9ҶoǰqgCx;Nk#ljvY:v.l=%~kmwT~>lAlqi>g$s 2kGǽg8{{X7yvYݡ54jWB䪻<8:=xnznW6{@{ha1=>[A.ϙyXw{vs )=1/J"CptsG9pS`1V !ZJea >yx{Ow*L$Hx9Gqn kvݿX5ЭI/t/37qZf8x[ /ǰiK7R;ox댇 ձyMJx6㜒o`_r|n'E ka=q[O|[oz>0bTb6g%lɷ톸}}3m6m!nV AvKL-bXF<6aq8  ŰSO4azF ;7'|SG)*D^c4Ւ?sU#Q;^3V| t 퀳cϽio {&{ZŜtOR^V1@>/qM o `t14zW5QwCo(6?=-[c'I԰gi==IFc崞iLyPÞ WmtLjcHQ؟10I 9sJqbAgЁqԄԥi09^s9^yM<¿ oυo q{"E[!دסEm5E Xb9z4]k;!Poo%!]ޯ;A{ˬ/@#[;zjRn?+E_5佭n3V;w3~Vjkw7h ?!R;Ah7c;\^Jn(RoU}UC,\N)[FX3Vd z[Ea~^: E$x>Z/xKwo%r.JtR|ھ}+ Ύ{myNYS iaN:,z?:AYC yYC==)9WBPR.<byG{, y}EBy5Y(Y>݁-#p}ė,_ʁp%q`YGkJv5;Vo ?׃V!nf ׻nP]g읠+ xMĩد&'WIWkSe+A}5@K}n݂( ZkNzԧ?muZ*^ q$~ {mWHy~mp>)엽!)8`k~Ԕ#_]ѷ nbb mG`<c`Hqg؟Ŀ' q{'[ S`:qntƻTM&l5_'b8xHmN2̆W5b!sA{s 1a+&a q|>E,t|8(G[56n¾t['&b:%yȒxog 4Y̿X9a/첲_[ @z~*K=J7WU1^xxJ7  A 94^S=')<q*ypT4f$hawB y5]>ވ'9?"zR7TyWrqZ~ }NWoL_v cʽ<ގ_}}~ɷ۰`!v}5vkCu,T?{`RN}w;hrj Xlu@sH؇SWF~#hWn Eph;L: }Nncy h ky=Mnƒ0fP7f W9K^ԫW9Kr]n=up:d'j"L~k~owa,;C=A:i/G9YA 9. %\r]nԗԗh8u 'r}qh+GՂrzrrrrP_t$Q_D>[S-@ՄZ~8o)cSO3t ՗fy,2͕yس9C 6R[coZՒK5ej&t5 Zrr \9.{>|l:NҺ$ULZ3^_BO{ҿԌ8ԭhV췡;`}9 fI9p/ ݖL)!uC\8pKh0EϒPg9 as|q@W[7 `h@aܟB|_vxCn~k1Dկj=j]JB̟;>1[ul`:: %= Jȗ4UM&l5I7іc0^ 9s66yCwZF^eKB'濑8FyKKa j%_b;|ۧtZgq|t5 -m~ ÀT8fmR8So$`?OSW'b&{ oh^aIghXoThXoM{ҫ@^oKҳUjzsuIc"cGo-TpB[{ {Z6.7T$2!#ʆ搛hzM~2 :k-u$}Z))R:ϓ`2}}VAt.w.;qn=Gv bxbw%j /NZ6 *h ]^4^ƯDKAok*iw4n9?N)_ߟr_D^5RoޛN?_m}ob{ 1.2侈ܚgnDgx1EpRT5"j"jJ|ȘXgq9l/'Mo6l)aDMCD ~n1|kX ?9ɫaבuD:ɿurXJ2wIm.?a_Ᏸ֜uYIԲr^iYy2bʯ~(#eX .gyPAd ۃM]v)veh, '= nשo9;1*ڭ"U>u<:@;֎G&{%AWCn+YVJ+uΗfVf%`iC՟Q8^in_C|wC9Sd@V(W U.ffB|g D!L{aw0fƩ!QK):/&Qjc $+k.vVtNwN;pn{eB?S !?rMRC策Зj] u]BNCW|S~H^~%A(B)3N)$u|]ֺZpj{/3ji=@?ӟpe@jϳX03.XRoCT1 ߱;;u?CДo`0S>;ŭ6u^qEL Wς]a K㽱{</,3+f&a_.U]3k!z-$?C@  YЌ\>OPPGصkAϥ#~D{16?m]G&8t}܆> }Gဵyg# R<]WCI=: |khg?m|ezvs'Л$tck>m˭)~aK <1hUMzqX^p6m?xiϋZNZk8|?BXsұpGL- JO|A>:@Ka?'r<3NU-uZl6ۅZW5Pڧ0,߻. UW]!)p=\st-Lu^pK[뷒=֝rK~ft ' u^lmknt1]~vďh on QuU ܗz덌$t9~C:qz#,_݁#׉{ý~ G ubN 'CS1 A7P'8 cᔏA׉$1|Zza\Xn+>& >$|D'Dqn`n1atB95̽)etK=fgPJ $vJr?2:i_z-=L0 6qNOĿCw;_;nhJK2r2yo)` ̇o6lyazڿ< UoBK |إͦΦhb6&9rs=Rswi]j>f8 {]._?2.?rtߜx;ڏb׬0VRV_u4Vf609d~N>#!z/+؉ sNRJ3NfD{ s&|-Samb\l":NhI&|#<ؿc;$a ~t[v9 >39=Khici~1s06!w~HiuBӾopHmR~w;_!Zwzit/?"kV"U'YdB9++rʎpZ@>dej;#Vc@m~v$Vj͠E$WNqu$VDLsoXwcº~Ϡ jDRUAĭ:F|0R7Fꦈ k{w A{l K.4| cNs 744%RWu"N nI/l|y3ю4nFW7__^u45) ܃f:*ϰ4)PFZA4UC #H?oaz̶-:ԈMν~BƔn9"uzg>g>%6Mc6Vn(m(m%;8 K9qtv/"'5\5i6fz U {J(Du.JɿD"'y@`k}w{99)''Rʙۥܖ͓; ee̡Re/5 砵zr?_n5U=Vז?rwT `t7T?st,J4+^5YsQ<QÍhe s`A7 N~6*(Z92:Dk!dڼsJ[;iW ܞ x8'M^L_qt5> HGHrn=Fi92*;3G+!4FD[؇R#FF3EyACM?w04H{ڠDZĿ:Io4 eAxϤa<MUn5)S/FCjN4QOQ?1ax DjlRژe@&4lݵ}"5@d|5hCS3ijZzh@ߧ1ǽa^54&b_ȼȳ֎^G-d<,dZH|`r̝hEIB3BZMWe0o-5[+4[+ b%y]\jKу*xއ`H^g`_NWjh8Z4hjkTѭm%n_ߧ}J }}.^F q+cJ1w0>oc@Mi c$` f~2&Åh~u%7*@JU<*=V7n^hȹ]J^7TXZrXL~2RXJhu5"!N?v.G]SO"}K›c_[7vZA5XXlQu"E1;&=f98 n@Sc|WV,MgZ˄lՋo_~~IH5>'&'1l뽈ܘ߸(@Ūa8齈_@W+IXE>z-:wIqOǢǧ =fekM_S>n3KbIBN.A31εr0 =M帗a,,,u ~9fO1!'b笗`,B#sfy&ÄkgڳT '0* -,O=Z/UXS7b}X+1>kbտb.kb];\ލ]{׫ؗX?;}H~jo z\kVɿ/hWjsb"6p׍h^jC6?$gr5$_!}^ wᯠ_[=>C2?gʽiUnZ򳢩9+-OV@#hjqԒ)ϴ2|eXٴw}Cgʃ勤4G- |8{G)H:h׏mV>Z}\K {k60z oEsAW%_H;8`=4 z־_08ǙOdKH&]$%1.1D:(HCȝ:F{=ks^g峾k={ ZgK VM{ĐM ~V@dOdN-=@hUWi>6qۉ[O4Ǟ5+dA js@Mj깧w㘃 K=:`>,'FÍhx&ס@LJccWcZ3<ƞDȳ|]>cH9ϏЌRls%ςi@UE:$#h3^l8Cn |K}q6|-\F7f3owo彗-wo{)]=X֝\PR2R3JiWtt򾾢[Uѝ^C V-6qA"G?1&Ԃgcէճ[=#n WsȂ6ĭMڸm Ljj-lb؂xH1̢=d}p?H1&i:İ~AGi{%%4ı.q:y y[~C*?'͗TJ:dU u k㨅vFa˓y1$ga:SX 0+G}q !]Vk!让heOs;Fa0PRAV?V89X٬mo:~/̈́s4s ѩ x&,mMEJrmj ̠= ` KARZbԏ/+a-l Omlֹ m*b m-G?@6q-mMܶPO:}H xÛhx>O=柞wnc`>o|b/CBE= SI1%=tpAl=8֜5t,y{q#>ARTSV~2T:4L,痌 PIT/>I:l6{{Wʆ7ƌ{xjbOMsq Nepo8bs&On)ڭs==GAaypa8G9`s GקΞ+=QZ|SCܸ#ǎw )X=~QJĶQJ:sO̍=_|y^4߯>&S1sؘ@n%(O5y_si>-)ˈǪ.}.C:Vޯ_EnZrXjo\J6xom|/SKgtX}O{"H?JOJ`)s1bw/נdeXNrOD^p+ٷl-;5+Ez];>@;w^j*qZל^E o*TP<ꆧrz^~s^S% G]!R ٟBֻB+DJ/i"^s譥*@7n7v*"4U؋$x/(nTʟM=+I)ޫmXhfơhn_+[j2|zEUЛjC}h3i[7jd[>!^$ԂtKtlmHg^ |<8і|7v[.kM{ njF[hٜg|6y2dc^+ =ij޶^3~zZ3ޭc5"-@R ?H}vcLNgc_W^u| fI кqo ]ucQ2̇9ߩ#g(<\o/Opz:z7Q10{,E]ЋM}ROx7$_l_^{ fwzץf]8fLMlRXA|V:b>:.Jj<[-ֱ鱳K;1y!=煰V56:}\I]N_ a !ROU>/YG>7&Kn68v}-P}!m l!['Ԏ`| 9m&Ęh{brX#B? U%bbw|{ظ䕯|GDq}%;7O$*W]]"RD,+^ e}"T|! ɪUب Qwب ! p5_q5Ǡ6רvg0OxQ|BnxT0f+*d_ _ɕ ~[Ok oz9qo+2-@b̤܀U|'_Bm}|zC_ '?A3tփ!z`>L}5'IG!R?}$9Xח~9瓯9'_gcs;BkȂf xno/bԶ>Y1 V9DǢY,ڗr24ƘiD=d3o'G5'GsUߓXW^G3a6̅z%?yD'66[+}i]i}UC_/=gw@,̇k2OBk؇1|ʩI bl=.buZm;bmK}xF-_Mmv_M&_=hc>/;|WcOGOO,&vg/V-FEG8 8߇^{!J:B~r19x!Rr |/319M64Ԇ.*j/k^y}5( x2ס?C9|uKa(ϗWWpb(bjܻ] vg@.dAhAOY8 GS݇96oL8tM}[HxоX6JkpT 򾭒_޷U"U}ҡjm 1(%Zw tޫ:{B+gy֌JkB{# C]}wXN컓94/>p//\!֬upzzEvWj]%(xfPr~xB?QL1 >1/_WU築=5x'Iڇ:ݗi5N,J9cWD`146w!cm')lpxb1?Ř:{ŬꉤEX(6ض2JI-_gMOVgP05U:IhGv/!!@cwȟk2z@_x~%Ϗ*GHݡ:o'4 ߻.u/mnaj/B~hKΗfZ46͌D3v?1IO!!}&EwdkAy |J?gX*B*|[cϮ|#=1C=ĽTa#;xh ͠A5I0Q :U`u}UЀ5U[hq`eQw.ժ>}z!u'}bE~t`>9^''Bw BUp2=>f,0Z0p?罈4g{Ӯm0 h@jzoM?l9NGP]Jw1J>qnH~?6 7ǂ~U^cYx^B)w/mc#0fgnǢ`8"z?/|ڿ:XYF>AL|r0AMfFmGIT33h^6X1x/eIXJy  `SU$$j$6=̄X.RÖۜZ|K7V_ϯCk]XWt^Lm{ۥ}hiP~L9; `|5vFLEzx?۾S'6ub3z4\'>%װ6uMy߃]vԉ(^$Ncaj}:1 |% yp6(_SXgΰF@!<_Hxyln;hL~}&e}H54gmj2~[OH5uFcUCN~~BW@ cJ>^<븛YZwz0(C!! ]2*A ]rlrRUPu{kW05UePHMgYڥ yA ymZZ ; 穪J(Y*C7d|O 񷉠xB|n6՜ |b ?/:_VV2$4F3vkH㐼l:oتcc5kQ5N Cj$ME+ڐ@3hJMC^)Rd4e^4%:VJ^sxA>#$!i:?1{zÃ?ޛL5Al[C kH=tijtdu;+ts[HviBAR6uBcG{wȁ >sSC=w3_7!Zwz {{ӰQ2̇/^Ï ء2_6^ 05*rrϷT<|硝ר+/Px"DB}:!_l7/]G_#n+2UkX?5԰Uބy`[`ws eALVsxsmޅf Zk`#nd݈. Ŭ w!kB|_FJxY{Ѿf]֡uWʧ|YiFkEk84xCk&̇N6 -lcmg_nwnw:ݗ?/+qs >Gs-tظ?G5 .Gdh7rkA Цsc>i/sP<,(U!Y5Qp.6 _sp¨>l( :fN7-̠1]Xר4vg0O4>baHBn EQmmVqO#/id_ ]P*\*Wݏ9kD?45'vW}A>}?΁?.1~~ .oAjc[AX 51mNr ˰KX~1S.C*B*~*ȣ9b|L0F^11fBy֥ym[AqA#6sK[eA<rX,̅*JZM|VӾ8n-Xne )[c0p?ak~6Y05P'Vgwa|}B `7k?ю4=f#sP7̫]vOSԆ~l%vaV;6{UUjj=Z}c\.ġ˽a="c/ZHCkpT blC(.54klHhh@k8)=H :$*Ϫ'GB v39R$I{YHb}@x_ʾb"@fB_]!#Bж4oNa\u%F#VE?Yon; R^ /zl=~D:@fʌ_K{A_x}٦>,B!RR!=*+b\G>\%ȍӪ>xB=w<պw<4y|~1[ vW#a 옫9 sczF0znZaRAVt,:}-&q\V~MjGW1jh`>9=~Ҟs#S3Ggc xfۧ6qۄ]aG6q[ͱCzj۰p1nZVsp:c-bnq|sn~rV{@id t V  tTc-9DǶZ?p0ωq ;ߋ4i~;Їf-lPAF(q~(=/A}0бkȘh>ÙGe>q}ιsjs&T͡iUܚ2UyvUl~QfF)vQq<_k x,xt2+9>' gÞĦ3[O?os!!χUp Q9j tsAO+&3 t?VstszV}M}"z,#y05?QǐUɾXN{1d 9b69YO|$zs/ܟ~@hsf/#~ow8j_͋ywvW3yS7^ %f+l0Rxb)^ޅ-ڱZV2jbI 3fqJ\J%{+;hr5lgaTU /ݟiZXzj6Z؏Ch-}P4_|C<|㔯p 8H}aLmgS܆H8]GGWGJGk`[_Cbҏ0mյ]b"/:^5b^21V~ߙWS:VskA!H)Q~EMM$.p\sU9HrKr+* 'A֟kM![_r?FMQy:Sq'ֆ( #T5XՂP껆5Є&g)uk Tnz&,ҡ4"M]}6mUtu [ݏ6q{52\3h͸UߏV}+L3E&~gS]O{ڳc9! ϑWzQ ƪp%qz%ց0}s'p4QJ;OQѳeSSm||2}NBOECc\yQ{2['Gk5J*]'G>}K^>{6l9?pоLLm/JKlk65gfLVsd&5i:aPԮ9uǪ9h`6sl&LꌶJEs`,e6cJ>.Ů%ط$t|\㭮k8%o5.K6ƦfN8'g'ub'l5/S;a ;і {hg9[aolS^2m9:x51̧ĶBO6'6O+HZHypl fnd3ΓKpL\Jή$yn%&̭6ső @g`jI5G٪*U)d[Udt-]A d[h2| 'IC;iIPX`o_ڷzx5{=I^S99KҟTw9it_?fM vkj${ %~:VkĻd0svI N6^ 6k}mn=ka)%cɩW.3_Kڙ@GUdQN8ŕ;: (.e ₐB !! p+" 3QFp`-O|z]u_ݪu'>{$*TBdUGPsٯVc*ԣiݴ`k=BnHT)bdє!R9'-[kPHQ|5QcjRT:/T.Eq^ȧ5S>®}ط}5>q Knڷ#=bҜ}(|tdw r=Z8JOx_.?֚t:t|<Ƒ P|ju:HbѨ)~7ۖsٽ]>(ƹN8RԅTE`Ɖw5>nsWaG̮45GFaǮxʇ0 :mW ʇ!qM>[ju':GHv_PWP#)*s/bv-7N_"8t-͟:ӟ`RFo9tC^sƩochĂbtʋmCC+E_;VQf5/b|d|T3,(׀ڔ[Ayc)wGUj a%l$m$mD˫ȡ 2EcZrj90=U͏GgX/) K%qE `Įط1[-uTqs8쟏zu>Wv:ߠ|7v9*!'skR= {$Mɶ=صvݎƵb%(-E Ôfn:LL?`>e3[K'ѕ֗mKE tk٭'g:sBdp5o]k ;u)̄(SAg5T_q; ,NmKA gQܟrS=x=@s8ٞ>qzX KY0دxz9穾9Pw p֨=YSv{4RP>9?k65_c+Ζ J~s*`>rՓ7Ÿa dd'3ƋyDgy}tD?cjGgkk9+LTAо|4ca3CeIyrsXX\Fr!b4%9)?c[د-UVAydCwς0BHo4Q^LLbt>)k"dA:}NwL~ϩ'A< ֚޵uYL_mwi3:4$-V0W0W5Ͱ ^۝iqPGk:bt;ȕ[`>+8?9M*]+/2W:51Ҷ]^>5Nχa?].ޏ1mw?s[G3Ϻg?0 ?pr?)"7S:W].v됋]ی.sW_"f p2WJPB 8]Y0دx\T'TW5U.yr+HB K8[zؘ!W&+yrlY,W2Ǔ%p+n:K[lz*iۍG)`z-%@2Tʓ9OuSt)%CbCU]44}hMz* x[=Ƨ*R!rx4/Цd8Je8AnۉmKu"b?bG\7ľ~+GTW*U3 Ϡ^0 ʠҠJfcW :(1蠄yQo+SUZxŮ\ч g1v-¾ ~{Ei ,a-7mokk2m>~ ˺Umr|7 _rAڷW3VgOs̟NQ?cw@dG t7p N\{ո^ǜ@;$Qs_&Gcbz=烮"5ʠJ`}%| G WSVE]mJ=]\ գnū36FMp&hur/-]'WJ~="k*@UC.|%䴥hn{ UJXWqlZ\B9,_Ҹ~b[#~I b?z6Ċ/4ľWEhVo}qӂրBVha&6@›hMb&xޅ{{- uc ZX/FH\hybĠ%-$kalmà-6E~!5ZӤVhZ0>~L6aI?%| GwNl{'kI4S/2o;OD߱>zz C>Bw%|. @?c7u@-]=9>x'QEyԩy?ՓNf⧯=@w{T*<ǟxZy bL?#GRTOxn~ y2=)=\{2U,tK)ԓbOe ؝)# IkP"_F_|qt{{{re|1Mb >@up'@k( 1#>q' yJ&$]i,=L_T1ܐ;F+ieYܑ]dΒr]Lp!NM)MŮ3-T0 ʠJfcW V3W,P"YJXO87yvXOxSrO#;M/ 9W/(qпЊ|@MT]F|}r7UuI{R~wvރ]='}镯Ozz3To 47{ӀkEσ?yw{ ^MҾЙFMp&8DO+ўx,Wrh[T"mZ/3.-V*(Wϋ|h+ f_ kTGa(_-LJ'%b1s6ۥl/>}-k7!rF~ڈߡC| *'k4x ktzR M6h4:0 /ޠxlMȹx}a&VBģA>;O 9=X/K˘&wXx'P /jՎ& .#_3梃S`ھ[hqhz/[f7h_0hz/x 7h5ډ}; ~ENѺcB >Ybew=3|9o2NjWbo&_ ~^=I9ʥ`T@%4k;-|/qs.{,(`?_}雨wtw,!hq^8&P~<9B_i|}KfA+x1ۖ^ktF6hF?HO7BkXJRX:u5t?߿  Ϩ UӼwß`) wYnͫ#\a6'% nTE0r#:ئn;?]{^?)J$˟@Yng+;_l?21U~WQ֍pi1(TN'::P~)tI7+ٶ7zF<3/3C~?HcjCvלC֪5gvVCa8<X#ű)!}T(.Ǐgh> !1 ِKY.#dT q,H$ckUMzmKRW!/-a^Sa$O.(jڙFL6A 5E)f5Ģ*|on 9,qwqdt(覆Wv` ,Goϡ~2޿bXAS҆j\ >ϊk__\g9v@1Lcs4EuXmzF-/_ˆڐV5hw#:bѿ2k~uoljxA}/uf.ڷE7׫ dHvMi<|;*ճ]z46d +4WMx<5+W/KF=6ml*q}} ugmx3-N&ocҹ]R>b~SQv/[:A [0L^;y:FW?<yG4Syo8ۍvљb,8;uj>:6w6v ΠR;pt+ ~෎}ɶht4ώC4]hޒֿ|-ʶ롮Aӽ.`=Tuۡ;9ޝ8Oesݱ-F'vj\ϸ͵/ i ]thyŠ.hFsA4} nnp'4hAŮݠiw+^';}oV/؛~_,ϥV@Z1=G*Mx=@zMdHAi*17LȆsw ٯUB dh3Jmv/^|mK׋l%ߓ{j7ǞNQ g9A>"~OQS`zL63O212?Z\Ss'yv|S]eP (J4QK}ga)` =vh:f9_F{K,? R:.6XKo }cϿaz I=ob!Gq N ?'΀UmgirvsB@jHQ?Bp(T ng8t;%iSN_ЕB_]З黐]@dzk3cޫz]9Mw!<8ڭ1wBA7㻫Bc @ PZu#Bܻbz[@.́:. PaB.::_mZf>5!|q_ QA@> {@(O|)VQf5^>W|qj Q)w8@5, I{͎lG,ܑƒ064ckZ CE1,0 {_9'[ 'w$ѐ V01tݖM'ֵm齯yC /wtbK)/Ce>NTT[&t=4}TP O399jƐOk sd ZZv XU5#kJ'99jbckumK`{Зi0G&vbo={y\#?m >0G~B{]=l̑k+/_a7# 10Ge} ;a+sVrVȭ̑[ s]ɺNt?_Žf5sjֶ3zy"-ߑ'ėOG<z4'>%F_o<3~b!Ow!O9W/,-|EAP+1?ݖZr8+fB4r'䑆&-ÿo÷W_PeKъ^3\-]3)5xlH^JTJV P#6?oOq  ksCaQ UaW!y=~vZpt=;ѦKcz:5CP_7֐f6%nŮn0ftt ෞue]@k3zsp.-nkr|}1F־i]϶k?uЀ|4@a"L =3-~('/]k͐ |hwCyQdxُML,N/uNZjtmH'=/gAfUi(4 ZIlX_V{˨s YXORߓء{ԓغ,B"j]<}VV=chUn]r a; R1W솽2َS#t)| оi˺I7?u90|IIB3 5q86? mX'&,ߓL{?q8 =iKVh { !$ߓn_`'ܵ7T y=Q牻Z˶6mtikNkf;]!څS#.?m/λǩ+hh٦;a7v /K .A7׮_L/΋ÙC1"zvTńbz@8 _2s&HI_P p@3лt՞X5rFTOn`pdu!S݆n0Az wqMNq<z|#,绛E T ?F¨pzȐF?F`':.6|GJ^V}) SIy Z-AR=% )^%Wx_4PdLb^ P 5 TcW2h@N:{p[z4m@=cQ<ޚ8Zsg^cN07.an\ʜVEsj_ _lW`c~a0̍;Kqan\ܸq1:[L11G`:> nwx_ou\,mXsc4͍u07~n Vqs̍s{~Gn:dM2'?}hMrd7D _6/\d&PtΞpU/PR) bDp D )d$ I @̅6T~{2au3Ziʱs5x|Yo6d@W~SE-";h=;yx<4Wp05p FmǏsa09`zԳW m|T0@%pE) }q_*2N8µݾ'0⓿'0ka b?Y "&O)=y?{{}3!&$xE 3?iGS >be,w P0@OmAao <}UQf4M ]6ql/#B*u4j 7٥'Tjw:̀9uw]jyy0'B}-;y̎;HrC^Xk{)RrԵ|ZEl O5 jm3̳Fvo\6/$v ߅]߅=;&X "Maqe/M}Xq[ןUU䀙C'|ck>3ZG\K}/19K uo]va_Kﮣ_9|/5RCc{CZ/A*=ydc=ڗ)L^-~mɟ5Tɯ$|w;>AL5_u ^tv{.茾֌lc3{ CS<^%3)k'r-G=b=zG"{|f^m}|גҾ{ޖ|_܇<Ó45M:`Jƾd Ik)W"(mrؕ}).~Kq[*~J0&MqD욀}\6;m5J;FPx%X8QLukO\A QVX|0c î, `~568?]pm5J Xbk\f>_j%X}ktyLȀ0 5SOF7b'=IKW䦶֎9&6:H>I cȫO5 yK.K8B?pp?Ůw%N:| Lԋ 8%Gqjj\~{p5\%G7(y>j]auAʍ<]^R-WZooZuil&l 10og7C .>Ň->lömNkѶjv fZz [+z9r˜u-S9^6ֹr_wQ_'=T ^ > .* ~F )y$g 'ɛǠ7mz.'>5sL[O's9c`-dk˛|JQgeH#k U;TނY0Eϲa lHC.bqLCwsEn tMxΙHdtm`U#0j4dzVr^81 jؑԀͼ;=3 km&^N9c~䋩Xs|q]BIO5 [xo0;,A{֑W)Jcc'v^5Zt_Ű }ˈeغ6B*.Sj{?HB~9˜}*U~|/q?5*sr 8磽!<[;皒m$d m':CNsϑ/_%u?M58K ?{dy8y'' 'S~ LX6~5exϺ60#TKh m[(tMّk);_Q#׾fO)0KŸ,u _:嘶k[T ,h | @^S8sڿS%0Xl  U_ IwٝIl@@>NO Ki&&O#D<x f~nlv[IooS:Jh=L`*J3O`Pɛ.u0k'(J %nCQy"Ӊ;.u0åQXHRT :Hu3x~GW"|6oysːËN"?9%y!9%X=MsߒCܾgZOI"<.RX+`5txîbHKx' lR|X'V5%Jk3mpmO[a;AToصvm'>0c@$pl'>n\F?ZF_2TmǨ?u1?TUal7X$uD~=J; u5e޹_<1='}auZl*B ( x fQE>)?סH 11:Ķ7 ,Xmu`U}* :uc*ZC+H56wcl=n#.uC~/t Fo"؏9Igwۻ/K0F+liItwN[lmX߂W ZBL8.ּ7)pkԴIs/gFjۻEr`zb~g۟ޟsmuJz)\{d@:L@yR UZ@^딑yZB2'W2`2.r)&fbG4]M!v ڱl|e1~ $'Q;t ݅"Ng" y +OI ܓ2a) gf,a\H2ȃ7a&'.C,\r\өe\B>c4;7QVm>8`LSٟJN .teGmQ@^7l%VGS^M$;)yaד=zg=q.k!)k))_J7&(mH:wrMɶmصԙRS)an dg=P8o b Rbfb_&Lb/9ntt~jt?C5԰_՜gt9njc)\xvl?648I5 YV  gG==ڦNIEyݩ/G8wwp ~j R8bAl>ck~G;huqi±t]F(~>gYt|L?9+=P'$\sX +@ Qg.rIgCW!{H*}439ZV,~n/.@.oE{%a8>f`AK9^k.ri253ppG4Ʊ,qѓ~66dBlmP%}z5u O;LR_==޳'KzN꫼'tco H]q%bw|׳Bp^}^DVn]uPԓ\{=E ;'7ÎބVy>Xo=[a> _%kvtA?Yw|ORH+1֭@?Otw'lɯˑ=l%lm=fmA?Picture 4""d"6wt^ 28JUund@=fdwP\cnT(Q4dxT[Pia{nf[C:%$A߻]g9dr۫m'8 WL=eihrEO^L^ y=*ޢDl]9u1ŵ*LGNBugl+̟; M],iL.~+0Q Ѕ6Mr$PiFߜE2ա~8-$'.wE.[*IӢS~YvYW)O]8HXg;d_a[aޅ?qt?Ʌ_?[f KKs!=<ىϧEF8s49|Tz`OK+Y,EhEW-Y0VIDJ3~I8^GJSC*C)L+dLY LGsa_|>,oٓȇҔ\(x Ea"ہdi4+Z-5HT gIZҪR~;'=ɅUW0'-m/dv, V0ܭ*Ag5S; I2Y[JK-b&HH1Et5,#%3# -*FuA-1>ʲP'`!812Qj= ؙB^]7YCD݊L _]Q*I+iX勷Zl")9 V6F0Ugrigoّ3?~wՔ;i.\Ko^)+A[zcJ%4f#,(h$_kHKyD?+>9ymrz"f-D7\aURt;j'TN!sk<3 6Lz웱;7 2@" KI~J Z]qWdYA* F$P1u{0R_K0>a<#aY[>mZ nHxY}1WFRVYJX-੝`LjoOxyxAR=H_1'!u;Kq[t>%c*1ygSKfnTA_I](e;Ho=oJKH}|j7O\՞2WߝG" oPFRY˓}̈" =)#$K3 JnJ\C9*FڊSv/YUGcֈ[午Ҷx߅khNou'T&J@)r>X|C =0íQ t;Ue="CvB 9Ƿ.RT.xl$>#neW?BO_M`LGýS/!lu70 OG3Q9ٻ8\vΈ~'A8y;P !r9y0YU!Bx4Rr7Q9uj$j0wgUQwjN@?D8<X LV55v t߯oeFv?3) 6*|*s4H$75GπSROPC}i]H0h}F yf"NoaqX9YH.lMϘzM7~~qBj>zϸE?`Or{#'Vurܡ&2psb>[,9+`jKI]%6"@\В9 ֢&X?Ȑ nڄr#:yq/y-ka)[fWGUL O؈}đ@PT2}Ԇe"@k#ڽ,,^)k vӪDu@CRC z!2F?s+|o )ۚi:߾- RWJ h ӊa1 \!C#δ&p1x*K DiP۽z쵫ώlQ[v K7nYNv#()|1ЦQ s&؏ !/+"l)IXSk`?C]T8XؾBlH ~? K'F#*C%'t9B18WTIƙ]/*m~xH&M Ego:u* 7KS*J?'VyΐZ&mLV:Tґ*y6J)PQB\dFWA|vZ)ڊ-b^2^'ɫ}e%։ ńddl:jۂ_B~ \/AiyӌCV ]ʠ8GEBc|j27c|Y㷻NZN1` :::zU/l*M'9rKfKF;FgfHrŶŊlVVFV3Vד,%ÅnYÙ໵_!;o믬~vē%!ivi}iij mTu}ԃA53PU8onBQ%e& UCXttTDeYX ʕs˲߷I  m32/ǖ2µ/yLj_ VfJIGɫ~XP3lƶް@z*CS97LXZDD/_2ﾠ2@hVT\uvYx[T oԔ1/{Lӫ'jRh>={vM{͎&҂{ٕ)k`wk~(b΃r\p1:03&APHǭ%^F77W'?6QyPK10ߣJj bq`.IIyqdqdЪ5`箎Ec!{+,IU{5Ec ڡ)ɩ.߅>R.Ԡmu:):ni3H+59SXr^G'ҫȊ5K. ֊b EE_-/E@FaLzt-`8hc: %tl^Xqa/\hzrG^^^-7SMYI{ޖ5-U7IeQ6Y֣2Q^zZE+5do5S1UŴYQ^δp;zQֻrŎEL;eo+O~ D$1֞'d{]uM}%jvtkm0lՙMiObbv+7O_f'CG\/rexXZTT f ê+KL+hj5Ѵ菉|SˑGd'fHo=}3.0jmz;z%D%o1rFQܞ{{ ,z>E=PJ~SdNQLͰ[G矰 ;!=)NFlʢb7Pr,7A!"Op\@Nw=ر)3(XgFSI&-FNFQK.\ϒЛD=SzpȻBcQ|ӥ {D(C5ɍ=c_xc*1Mut<z=\! 8F5%\wZzW8] HKgE&߆6,>䤿c)scd*$\!SǬIEh&KFr}P mS*S f!K:R` olG~FҥLjL¤$Y/plHFAcCƠ?6Ac?_ف?DZw$HρD rs "Z 8FZ)R 7Ҙ3׹t>GUF[1]8$>J![ˊo|NL*|󢁋!CbѾFnn8f(6۳ؓ G0Ow6x ^'&yWΞ[{8Kpؿ~S8C6~Fmξٷ~AqOQ-%~(eG'/&(v@(3rAzV!\pC$RiX'hp~M̫ B%e.Hli5yi%KVir$lʔ4*SSk?ƱKXx)@Qa"TLdЦȲ7Mu^F_3Ȇo^SB>/TSt.J=a{>Ut{O;2;smHYPLR.vDs%&c=M,> bP?Nz\=1WїQdE&|=+潁Hgd'쥠A '%::ǣt ԱgH}zRwʼnܞJedE (~Pz=nTw679oUʊլ/?M(Ydd=DKKdt ;Uٲ(i6xg93 ?v,p&knrtDRy{Տ+ܶ)&m?ps12̡NVA`e;g#j%4 K,N Q;HG BMhS@f!&)D↕ZI0CcDlo|6LX%]i쑹_U+YҮ' RlEճZu)\;~4Jᑬ;Bt!| BcE?V1fWV#"w䥓bTMpsMh64f@1k,B=,B\-(BQބJP;|C qEA!dUˑ< ]m ŗM -JlRL j {<z˱_* TJY"b k ّ9IHbg6B3r3joOj6j*ꦌ%jg* BћmS+ƷOoon ˽Kl+ Uբ|F(JIb0+ +$+ݚ.IVu ӄff[BxؒuH)~<=f] yaVN>O,R/9Ci8A=5M.OF)YevٻD:4"?iiv1ؖ;~tbw£dxolx̠GߤaH;ov|36))ej8>M(S;՛ݪ¹D"Cs'V;3SWڦg>Frd~ϑEY,QA8om2TQEQ) vvo듏W5{+c@ՠb)P vS8'+yx\C(C hmdNv,d0 A,XF[e;B훀fW>(mK4Zt ,DKmDQ D]mX,`3Ib Y;EPFuYe0'4OyZ v!/aj.w{13? /ԈcꗤrW{k-G+K+qXoddO_֐ۿ{tɾM~1_'g D% ߕ1L:ʦ*ό} Pfann}9*fҕ 14Q=PXCWo֝cɗSJ劣~4g^5Mk-5wG:qHӨq)8J^eZXٞD#өܟt=} 6kbLj֤76{<:ٿuCZ=<λ^ljh-:\ ^M\,zO,T .썬ڏQx >|6vb!N35.^а90zmqjVKb ]'q+amv8F*vslWn!KTCUsY缋oODN{XyђMv+=I MWKTvv;{S#.;es>_-.7.ZWZgoтn!hMzMgο(OCCgO J(SwڮܧV:Pۊjzߵ8lrnWz~< d l|xvbuk M_}nֽ.==/~P<>89 qyۿȋf) h"4uB ZaI?s9؛:N=3_?TXU] 5G؟?r2JbL0{GsK?F dhlK7*n8o`i-odbokdDYɁ8`WҴ4uA0;=90@.ȟkۉ_\SmGDܐ{R_.Lb  Jn0̃] r 8. ;!nND`0bל`&r9@0@`RF?P0E@09ꈷzo:߄dds#tqCN=43uN&i0s"`́2:l5Ghbyx-ی@vN刳(0 `ߟ&;b~ i|O O- ,/̾9dr2L&@ IDl.-[V".( }W-ޥ׊T>ZzQVD\}wȜ,[n޶bꚡaD6c~jVf?@᫮)/ |몍7-9ukVkAGMU17چpmUs נ-^;t|a'oڲ4yp\7yMq<Ջsw)U1N!ځ2@@|_ !GG_gQ a7wn%> S-2>qɚ8@TsZ~FSçFN}tS <5Ow?} :Iq'4:AuA0|FR1M|E+C~~) ?O- >?{$V프[Fž9PGwwgMnwnah*t5J9J gޥ3GFF9Wص3(ؙ xxgwx'Hr,EJ.2/=^rlvlTʘr-&X1e7^*azDz/iAIIʜKp.tCI(&zjW LF-:]E;QgOӸ㢦x-O;5{Q};N2Aq e{'(>=&8A~[՝zLJ}})LCqض6L~vu5ԺnhP˱7^?3S6Q[looزZ@LopzVx$<}p?ٶnÃȆ6{Q!3$JL3E^ܚz&ʷ`JP00zjOЫ4B/%9} hZ ʅ:ԇGנA4=v-h!@zC:Q;}FMN//гBkDJD6SL[;uSJK^𦏣?QϣgELY^n t ~n@1lO.][S]ʓx,ZV) Q۬NQ )Ɲ.UŶq$0_cޯ}_igW#x[j{gY)8O,I7i]!&j^=8Wxqc*䅏͡5dcQm!c4Rq3@AI+lK"_X8~\V`qe4vslu;NA3{=mz=ր9Oߣn"P)P,Pa:(@7 6Ž}`d/{."ցl'm\xu]8eON)42+e=YogQlecOtP&A-5|$,c:{C$9xYD[,}!SN{Z~}!:z$,k >Z,aͬG44_D"('(or'0f}hD}͉OMU LF_) Z 9#WM`)&PH}I&S,U_X?UU/ ՜貇<=Nh$dCkA۽lQ`cId|z$6R7Xc~f}CW+v:KemW ftFUN_VqKUum  2mb,zZtp0!b e֣ٔr%``kPQٜBb,IrD+yp(DZy(J,1\i,W&JeE򀅿;v;/ޛ3(8s&!*3nF*Pw/謩ZWm nm}fE e.=-A(@ dMt;#iU[u MN Hص6 #n>~r#u}p ^{$o@/)\ Wع܌ڱC/Y.ӱ|aIw85FQ旵Z!U5XX*}}R{SլcJ_l= /ATdfv3\ Uw#V1*?$0F!>r5\Y \U U4pj01cb.2E`u-uH}Թ""i2X:mAs*# ΟwrCyyd!2kICOɟ =ŷݸMnq]]u~aƨc$cQh?o*ٞ'oo TS$%!S\ǦGnbWP뽍+PX!dzupxdsz8%g ;ܮr1Xml˶5.ɪU]^ܭ$I&GLQǦZ+Ak3$5QGt:#B/C VA Jx ];3;29++P?@~feKU! @tƊ Y!Dt 觘W_5m\jNWｲ*Qfp M\r[NĿl% ;nojDM]lzgrٶ0E9o/-]m(kG}C}MWX@nsPLg\. '\2M/]X!s~1'e+l{$!01!Y奺7:`OMiTW91UUі8GEPM1ulM曚)e^cL"G0W n""tG?icB`!G"x/c_kCx`85hA9ZW5"i BMkx,g L+9] h%@ؠWd ,5ME3`xc9[ [v8 x+TZh} IԞߠ}Mwka8IY*tfkGsyoեɑY=;j/7;?x$_ܾlu͙w˵ead4]^e(I &P}{'-uDJvݥ弆θ*~y_z_0gy]f0OPprф81JX#棖V,WlCZ΄y*y%h-b| HiB39%*ʮJFZmи32jy\ĺ&> mY]G`Muj: 1Tݴ6 `(9[8PVD@ar`$<Fl2ީmT6UO^|Y ߶> 7>|#6b{f9le7njʿ2s/Iy'L<6Y~.2Vj ڄ7,4U7%̣WЛ]Aɘqd4|8؏-^%%VzS`zp{'+NX-)?r:wnѺsۗ!5$9`ltϼbEl`ٜsw)dS(j*bd|h>U]7GӫYjaw %#aNb*逅/=R*_6~.EZY s( bB;ELNusLnX-f81aqf$u3<;QOq!\`d̡QiPqGL(NjqQ6aH``¸O-TK 6~(e2* 1R!!x^w N\3le@j3LR֠#ݾɿ:*^}$v{9Ok'B FMJM2Lz0GʁUı| >l̩~Mw&v*v)-UG 81`L9Yiȧe/NsR xތ9\en&&Xf³FP]t`v̎ʬ4` 2דaz}ۨ_僁OAb>bPe8d2פ`#L?~fxf +z ~ t @jڎ-d#ͤ53`3a)a)+o5?s[o_vy^>+z+ 7?Xf5 _%hmd}GT{ ceb5}"f2.XTf)X@ёm{KÁM흔Xm!\}׃iY PW=>{̽3]Y!:=nZ"Y:p>U46BOwI^“ u4mA1Lq<'(855QfZ,9 vjpBB$V{܅s18s҈S=/8 7裶>{3N9ފ鳧CIiK#g4Dׯ"{{Pt2s3j]էk>ro_Pg) Qh G!7Aռ[q b,UrY` ViK901uNa^5 گP$<j J Ii8" 5pۈB%ZJ"(yيT?uFl-C| N4 9%%I0jj*z5 iQ v3(TI Cm , JGP jrIWub0G2kKxiSSs*!~?NFLzalru~4Ϡ\Qӑ '=mUofXesJow؜U[ް(o^kEv^*k1afg#UTjɮr>yP}*pogKtMnڗ_]TYC9[wncu}U =^⌶)ioո͊w[*r\Ӽ엦ݗyeNgX:2uZn7o7j425jD{㨭ٷNserMwKVt9DomltShXϞ c7/)xaMnصo~\~--WOHZk;Aߏ$N,h$p9Ҁ%~OE}5u1Y7bQ/+e5qs޹M\wPRڡMI?7=?VYӽQ_5 &7P)(}ynCQS&NIR ҈\G?joGd?Qk=:%â%T>;Aq}A;e̞?W[WMxa[#^n;_QرC(՞+ܲu|Zۼ-vLVu߷j]{􉿨$K%54=zbg&:4?H7JTns{Ursc3sTU̾J{cksdaUmewdm:j2O:^lh#} ]Qt.*9+gŌ}~+.80խNq:v38tf:G%۾;o(<@ζ 2k,:wj5k 2VOs<&P~Do)>gi[Goi{r"daKIiw*Tペ<]1k|s "6E.y=j̗*uW?L,ιS+|W{u ;JLl|]i֐,~&[ߩ-y&'ftCPǴ_9+/N^8w[[RJηi+9rxgC ԛ~,jYX$qUŖ5?m|KTϹ)A{٦5u05ҏq9KL:z(R#PMQ$/r-ZWOy"H\">{'.|oVeYK'غ^x)bJc搏w>ǩO#氟y2."WG]&[{,7pWE^|15;jeԹU/՘Uܭ(xޒ#G,{@dʳQ <>|p+:ى5?\˔ʰkU1W͟7}Ct+Io_{KCDn^۲q:Mmgn3wzkwȎ-㺵ȾgKɀ+twו 剡Mi1Cm[w厌HKMS\vAY][O}BL z kq{Ɨ 1}zܧE3`֍S&JowsΌcN -]]pNs8F/_=X{N-g[R;6\Ȉ؊#g\~I0 }={+k߁&oz.P:Зs<U&CŹ.q&^|JwzWb7j ]kgHZt]ƭU7Ļ{=l[%7CU}OtmvLȏjA3-Χ&`srfc̝֚s`PL(b#sq֍k"K %?9$]pဉ2׸&wjAKid8t_^Z$=zҌW0||/+XNRjWY7҆cE#^{ۻ&E2b__:*\cc쫜}ºm%*"Dּ;QtrDёOv!̼yɲaϛu_Ր%gE=nV>MMm-=zր_{et/xyB~N͛FdS<+Iaf:{\pRì:'#GTl <`ԅ[_=iM]ӻgg5EYF;ٵj /yƯ۲|bMW'PuS"UmShͷUTN<ڴ[\`7\wΊ;̚_1"ڜKW;=SwdWUVFnB:}iqΙSywSAOrjT\+SE/V?ZMiwkr[{FY-5+2xSucqoD[N3S֝Y|#kn]3^f6n_zuʟ&9MiߐPnRϜ7o?q;VMhaO|v2߲̬O1ݰٜi f+*y!Y04i廨xVhX~3gW8jo#2IՈٶULkrrؐnQ6촌rYKx{fK_^6+j[tNBB"& ^upyc՘08q ~߹aT}XhJ9<#_:;y;9|Ք|VT.X7H"opvZ&<2]Tm:a*K>?q6'Oݥ{ _jMrײ<<ncjkjwz_͹f\;3Ɵ)MD&AI|瓓"8|c%Uhr#|uKYӋ;ȸ_G~G\(Яpx&BqS V%p8sKqͬ><58.gfeC^3x@ | |B Μ>m'I3%>#g˅/+xtlε+g 'g-\˳1ڟ)/)G$Lv&Oп6*6<wQ?6av!!6֖!VC&YB'Ib(~2o3BR(J$ )C NAw)jd5s"-SU8DzA9iO\B9"9D~! ڢR1o2G;}`QX3,7ʷa>Ak)4 bg9ZF0eW'lzx -B#AQs6f6d^!Y''\ x(D?-f֨[*zhj( 2|`GSS~*Ty+ԣB^O5q*芩&^&+_J m'h7Hi iP&qXGZ ,(,13X r*I gIyHȬ2[A ㇌]]?\p e!ۜ bf A; YJO-N%K9B$H z`Z,b.H#֑W0Me0imƒ@؏z3ݏ4 &PaT@JER<~?KU᷹,N]߹T~ `氖vY2Wp& !+F,4^5"!H0%&d%A~{! 4Y=XXu4 繮+km i@]<  [{= yu ψ.Q p2Y,,G0$QA$fAYXshzc(ozӐ%-Z6 dca-&dOf T5d[L[vOµ7 ;殍0su>:]qԱMp)gs[H/ AV!+UX_1f`šOGq|,(Ai~kub?G`= |Qw4h@9s&`Y,JBVu1WzmfHXX0kfO~aᝧypI8~0΍5&@Y!i3wJ$dq5Ǚ*Y-lf5a{C1o˜;'H<-M^$_{A9x/7.K2T ) K&&@%/il7BVZ \}$AZ E|Q#{b'PJEY9BB9&t9̺*jґ^c~t8@ s,~'I Z#o@,!^4.O-倲AE yd&FQgIn2 CS1ʣJ rt9rswsג u"HdC1X`whdg#_GtSߤͮԾ+~(Y@BV2: d cD., 8^:LHb=uUȻDWzWpAwCRPP@R"k7!zS&cyRM+5@U6; o,RBVLjYK6'$Gd- K5F}~JŶB!Y,BV"C&ЃIY@YX3Y1{Mؼ d8˪' µi` L8ۂcM g1clIp)HL˰~Ἄ?A\Y\S'\C3+PY~JYP]xT,߷X!P}e*v:M8]& z 4<  K=)@o !;qW} m_ ~ꭠ1 SЧBeb)$k2$J&d}$daaE2u5HE2ѬbLBVE%42 ŃrH X8 =%:Թ38/OrU dq=S*58X:|2d,C^ohV k!W7pMhY0O 4 .u&DRNXQ7ez$@VBVLWO`=~#d#pY,uGº ~$T=*8곬 ~!BA GH' }F==N`:'$Bf/;A@^ ?u ᾬ^^#Y ƁPuHX]7(B!,3A^1 dYHYv,,\H ~gs޹~C$,1cY#!d%dA`025BA BV8%w"Y^,,%Cd +!HXҬ_YXdK2o l;,RT(YC^a~M4@@t9xyXxľ&G}M o7 ,̓]"ե7BV>ui,Nn lBA( 'dq V8䪃{3/Z @ !uEiO\)y!i䡽XVBd|SO+9>7LsDV7lOy0V* $AZ E2|V!z7﫣Q7!or@9iPT劎|Ce `$3y9f؄?㖂6^d= 賛^/} "egڡpdI,=($X(LJ02ZGȊq,E=uF9%`!AV `g2da%,SB|~"װ4lYX YaPI{!YCYX=k!kreaBE7h7 R%u'dŃ_$2,{.>pćӬi,,1x3!\ "a0=rз,lο hV K-tBDzu^ y>^>sof3#}?f_}G1T OaEY@aKSKmT%/Mԏ*(GؾCPWo@AcαUN`t ؏*J'U9$Ɓ!-CCCqBgHpk5NǾLx6yv]6oY+Kn+`/zCXXƄx(iVw0@o,!d%Du(zBJ=Cd KۛLRY,hBI KufAvgoBU@ ̀f da'dS+s7as2YXY*`[c :l8?zB1Ώ0b;y~ $zE|29Y/XXyiTza,o@EjYpK"n)  &Dz-|5 Ȓfa dRK#24 A v:!2/+ RYaԣ]?Clo<Aw~m^(QeGrpU{9̘aUю ?D?XK o lBqxw'C!KHJp~2%o8wP烩[}B8 #AF .?ט>ǀ)ߏTɂn8(yP <FpDd,.D%p  s >A?Picture 1""o̡h?p]Ī^or @=VoY'"[M`oO$oxXT!S`P$C@;nT:%[DinPK@C:0psbIG&[sf*;6+FY$_S6X@x?'peCZ{/cikqYRR4#'u,،]lpM778XӏhZ©Cj>Iޑ~)Ys9=x0tu7Cx0A?4C6TD4=|3KՁ'C1.gv6,?&jm:cF^g4/ZJ'Cq:1DSRk@BLFo9ͣ nNI6Vl*5L"6~"FOK x)6?giZv.e-o1( zz\ zFضђd* @ZD\K6p@Zw0Ⴧ+gZޢV.Tc?G~FJL(Z̲=%ѬJHGIHĝDblu4JO%M2`7ۿnEW-*Oᐅ˻kO On?ZU nȂBUgv,{fG/W|_o&;\#mox(6/rrW0,t`6Tqu7ٖzm}BGcꌒZvb>4w" Bﱳ-֙ яh 8n{(3)X |Nh-q-~Hb8Y@•a/4IWmmzcEȡә 1j-9JXtwf$p\<5T;܄ pgWAst?~eឨրk,v]s>d9n͓#_Ye:8:8:!+[}vEx}.8x\x,FQZ/EǏyaB)Zx,8zc֯߾J昽ux( $ _brj?k}`ڍPX.ƩES|-*e G3 3)zL<Օc 40㧼hvgz:Po/cN!0$ H@ym!vUW_wWq ٭*h۵QyS}l=Z#R̗mW-Ux܍:C*JjҞb b[ײBu۬CsԊU1b9DCsVk<+twOjFCh]oqy:tHuهnH +hvf{mԕX\@?od{Bwwi# /']o+p7s wtE#@wDEρ4s n(kdW"Y|u7;Qq\AȤ ] 2K.N0]5I'KIAr r@@v O NnvW+x\>OsC!kZh1L0ېP)$wM_zd`„GpJ۶I7{ZVeW;2_?%cGybKQe ׏ -*($h`&MuѤլsc VBl"P8X|t4IYe}θ{##:]HA8o4'bSIE{ $[Oޜ嚷.H_沆lLyz~ՋB5yx*r~=Zj "S|pI] UϏt3rH,st_M\OV)mN?&t-Xw0HkWuqylG YA',f*qF_!|M"SeG ŋf\|"."'n3ja9ѽs&- Ú詢rD't7+ӕ)WCwkDyO#G6+7eZX|*֢@'o,?/iO-n(XpsJy˿g'eH% a>/Lsq#sհ u/J-w.bEژC 0vw2 s7V, kw(76ᙒϘPTӼQ0 S@,r @Ǜi|Q||*u7$:/Y8$=1<}COUZPόiH=O AU*urܢډnο X99|ɏR7[PiX!t-6yg W 5A]:}6w Ջ)K6aԸӑu7u{]biZi[ ӈ~j0<9 ZMV涶?= c֯L=lVW#/Az>`Tm0^BR~lsn YXNзP;@^AU ,Tlf߲՘d"l^.p<0U9ߞ3ݰXViQEN-k*b[=bjv 7:&Դriܧ;OO[LD&=|I}A?{úifQm[¨M1"tKBKX_v Rb(6t 7Un1?^1EVKvɏ)(L_ިg4 sVR(Mf50*.XnDpEs5?`5f.M~)YRk|# Dc/Xǐ$~0,o0/O`\{sp@6:^\V3ND|5 L`Űc?_rʔvXY6PC~菜v.̛ `;콝, "Q'@ ۤ8hbfhҰ0c%l0ImK;\d`^of$4WgӾȘpO@zkVm D7#NGɈfm[cS=TR,d˴U=t wբ͏*}NNEkh=#3O/xqC?*dQ2/E'"u,ݐĈ= ;c_^?}Jí@2:q_i7fk 7؟;qS(*/-Ew1CR0+gr6HߊjpSYdl\֦. .N?'rz6ֿ' tqA~1 xGm\Rzrsx7{ GDž Y.^'/ .7z/77r\6P 7?{c9Ŀ6Bk,kSM\ݻMq#@^o,2ΑC!6Vw8.@b?6N?21uzvEĮ sкk BfM=o 9k>H~NoPO' AxK7'mrN['[w:@E},+}H|hdf1Z}fjWάϧs''z-C2W?>N7}kX EXNS><3jp3!L 0nؖ[͋]լm=]Vc=Y-5A\;a*7cݯb\Z)uL1~u1uXvkzv6HHG 5q/ D_Kb~`~QLy@5T Duc1JpswfqB 9_Ԇ>IHHs.m) ۂiY(IlVix/Xwuĭ 6| Y# {yBRNMZI$}۵mE>㦪 NFקq_evq' ޷mj%pK/=Dv-o-]{סHw>rSԸ6%y߭ %G< n:wWʍV&"a&-.hYt[eռ.΃ KZvJ*ak喃j>อW)P7"^F$1]z+=%X%6,Kg5Lw=tj&F.)0#(77p1Zt\lx}#*Υp/ۤaFk}'$F%pm1Avc>F$UXR}2&_brxT9stff`":W8925_\qy:LuaRNd lu`1c\Rmrr=Qߜ:a1ǮXrL/x;Q }ͮI3Vb{e-۷'9?u?Z\~}:;}= +;Q\rYOUG n$<{r@ St4_۔$LTڵd"_PoՑ-*e;/}&R{y8f\"phm=8WvϕZgFZ)DQ_+ QNi;g8X>w%t^i2, |vRF??h (='@z0:a$"#*S9$`.sZ|REz]ESLAL*s=7 S/Z\T2eZX2GH˸Yn EH}6ƻDA޴42,T r G\};Z(pD0CQlrc-*W9 3`J'\TG2j:!UzP5UkɷJZJnȒomc/K|^?KOەR*?'hU5& ibK/0U wY5P[ܶ]uX}aFKB;qռt0MUKܔ/9Z'.kJLY k!7cg YRlmhY d#Wɨi-с*q!7K6c"-CmaO,d(,y=p?{Mq;CӒxzP)d%$X/NHŰtWVv`Դ:}&YKV-z TЙ4eNINiXD9 U:ak?6d=0o?|,0P@CO)5vCVGFr 36b6MU_GYw95)/D%׶O}[o'mێj~a׸q̝ )"7s' K o6X+h)DdahC$BkIý7Uqم*91n̘mԣƏPhtC`,\6`mo|lg4CθdA ԅ-) VU/N IsX%uxBrba䮃?_<;\]ww {.݃;wޝݭMuUSu:Ϸn[+?rX'h6[[b"3XĈ@"t|&;v{_ta,OSXl."G:7'쑗/@e^҄;wap7R,U nGlFHc_ͬbō6xӹ-v6PhIf.Lz_5MeOfI<:$mV@6kQCS8;mjcQ~qM +S[#\BcNIOhCvBg]:)~(-925 ,goF {g} bD/\lղ >.#z FB>:zժout^絺joxD>i8tԬ @!$Y"yAЯsT.o Ja9n{M?1-TBà}$$(XXf5vjHeG<VS& V>=[6'%ܸpmoJ, jR Do=k^?qx٥m-*R?] _`oa;Ԥ>BXMӌu}T5Q,S)CIU⣵PoQ6X\:exW$\$0LNbtFtdRh>s`|҉x7x+ͧ[촌 Z]n&Fxߔ5^kP px>~WB[xy V\F8l~9v(}ИดɄ8̙eU =\T |Ib!D+3a(+)>H !,ъt B;&>yg5䇦ܱPhQ7@qG"(+v9'8*H(Fv^F/- `Q_t׭/$_6Aㅟnlt+%s:Isuڼʢx⮨jݭ59mP%I9L-Ȕ<3Pr{KʛL\>z89a$sVvTPt\׹9f)?Řʛo|7' L\c:lk`#nF9˂.;]op޺K# K\INnbkYy2?=[۳Ĉ!kGQs&a C$,I?Dx{-t֠m%f}]OQM'!۝5V54|wv]dbBH*-~#g(2Dx<4ڂmp!0 m ƻ3 /j rJ6 O9=? c:ù4 K,|˽g5% ZAr7StK f@OQ CΩ E& |0"!4f@gQwKJRDi5RItsk;!]툼z؉I2n^0qq&Vh8lq_m˷ AvSoRA靺j=_WvE2=1md wR MQ&: K0yZ'Te$jŮn2AUc0M ?o:\CZ,ʁnO6K'yfA0,]pxT{IZmszgp˪#㻼nBɤOj0?vT<&b\=e%GlE3 ٙd=IDNSʃZSSzy$A1QXm.j;Hja堬J\?x݀)+Bѷr.hٙHN '0K) (;3%4{4G): 1K1lW5iG7lP~_ŝ{e="=0m5Q'lclSYR)wInӋ`nvFoGh㪊? H qL8\ H*7aȏsN_ԺEO=i?kn8 [p!3T򵘎 ej?}mj8eN-G[,`^Q-Q:_ q1b W`&2”]񉗽7@-1PjޕAs#ouhUЍEdf4՗&vdTEj..L+tU\+>%iU Hapfb@)ŬU3iuXA,Z 'ɪ1,@ 53Ribͩg D*Η;aċ mnN[fF| bWqԼ!&>CnRU^VѶP4~*:C$dPAJE2D>F@9N*lyl(0IV@j=tIyAZذ.N9:GOVK%( RǖIonΙZ2X ^ (/q%*/1DK&šr>-%|Ef ]&>e]bNM*KXzp꛺/sL՝( ~X`e-?}:RzȉP&&PP @C-9npms]FJDcAޒ72ԶΧQĨn^$1 yIbaEGvpiJН_\(s:NpZDm6kKL! Pˋ/6ב(JBK bEnFΏgFw"sgrdՓXYZD'*> +(%Bݶ aetP'Da ','49RTyG%oXԉJ%o%R!%׈ L*yTn*Yp[`h mGH*7Z yW擯͏!Ʀ7Ii!aSh ~ }X`%K5FaH[r?؜%cY̆hA/:bCqE[~J eSV $3O~&.cxܟj9ʭt.͏7B0Ⳬh۔xey>]iKoPF]0Z]xsVE)3_m^ ƽّz8 UZ9Zm_FvdNf@C>(*&mY -WȸP.mY@ u)9{HBxzˮaAt cVMAZ(e4@#O*Q AYjz]r\*g>&M\k>O۹Gת_6(jI3(i -EP)S#H=I,c۲/ /::> Y܋5s}I$th9(ك9}T$o>ޙ܅yNXa!%sy &;qɚ-"{Cts3?#5anx/] ` %1?HKQ-P@6ˍ2l !Z'&[!zt`(OI{#rWH({(Ε5o^ww J,sdɰ<֡9aJUUN-%; U4K'"W )rohNU/,4[x3.fM}9&BvmM%XOvfw3 `InDHx՜Xk l`'"6}Yɡ* z=ܛ4o(ؙ6 @ ht%20uHB,2ۤ:Nw|钯W-l,op}+A^H0`y+O7 cka,ѣ˯sY+ ʆP_n! &YgҔv[Sim~Sj\qpB0>bE [hX% j/5b 2OŔ״}BF&FHg޿J`kG$|'.uXssc5LGJ!t+Zf)~T6m:j %jy8Xu6 3El)m/bSUTW+P.b& ܿ]9RpIS𸲎]Ұy} 2_ӌ,sh>u9ױAޡ&v)IMfa]Z&;Y.ۢ35 \KK\ |ۢ{(!V(覝FTshj "q pbFB4E"T%f& 8O;j$^0OD$^ lNд0|dAMe@#LKp oQ ڭxFڞ=,,tV&:3խҹ2ԝI,LiwŴ;>.@۴5J뫵6/ 935B@o `Uw1˳nu56q2KU5| !Ե,2w[ /Y86Zά;a!|MR$to͗: dxS %ND:U \k3B  <^J~4OPT d ]0n_ 0h%\}/U!kƴiv<#gƠ E;,amtObӏR=XݡG<h9.j_] hwd6=N{D߻<מJk7Lhf?Ce)-({9:׬~q$4թ%QTJҚM|m6? #qxǀ mH\ߢh'S3:ո$z<" ~ AES!^mtw#G_?sn;+XI߰zr,ZR6ut*!B]^8~.U]l*&%o3XpA(b;4G"b2, / y1ү\h?]~!|߼ 2#(ʨ`5SIQgp/U'- e3ZA".ao؛ʹtoN^Ì.S0Dx \TW<4/41 .coJ4BQAuK@ipMŸ-w5J*zGx[BBFoA@-sQN: zOmc@h(l ' ]x*L_<lj*QΓm\`1)IP@y3m3(ߤ 4oxTl*rM*z>d;풅FeiU|p΋m>P22wB!-t~(Lջa/%HB.MERNozʪS#d 1-vIϣG?oXh)ԕqQF;dFͮH #HuWɣIn}3L*34^!CvHIN8(jV;Zez} ][_x$Hʝ"\ %WqoZB==w0kϼ7zD@ Nn~3R^ =- gҲWs,M+k@Zl#hvW,iWbrخI|h(5=x8[ɇ" Ӟw0ri+,q6lbf\:S%᧟t$)<\S.U<6J[/B[th[ $=Ri|稲m;ȳOtc'ZzRNd_T%Z:Ȱ!b` ^p1ڶ%nC^F{<_:ʓJ煡: ذymٷ?7lo/|=/o6R'?:7_c&w=W/qW9cWn߆?uQn{ܼO)7{L ˍδ%-?w? Qr[Znvh#}r%a[1 H/'RH(}BqW#7MO7օ.YOM:$Qʮ3o[eZ%9(R[* ӵ %Y5kpYlϙV_ol2$lzٹݚH洍\ /zyvGY;H O we y_kTU6첝U#]a;2.M 3 ph5Jgr>iH$/v ž2 όVWapE'tՠ!2*cQr6i{cF7Ƹ`~X ˍ$& oDM· hg Z3UU3yRҾɖ+ОJ*"IZhѢXZ% e %[S%+"ED%yrNN{}?^=93ggΝ{?w~d|zѺNoƯyc,b֗Si1gmP_$P#g{fDnQY[;`e_Ɩ;lKۏu4 tMf6 =uɛiFV -v ȝ][vJ:4VGBiYWVc*WYI: 1x˗3-ѡ oQ8HhWZR_N: DU?RbPo/փbaoj޿q)⽖Y|n<(CSf[!C{I?6m;y/șr/2_ȞpRWޒ+I\?4],QO~X!5}#>*U>}:Dl >;&yue;O;]|"pcf¤_/\Nn0)BƦwqPSAGҴbLon|\I/X2n#4mbIR^3qВyuX! !dԏQ-ZsJyg 2 lT%vzZf/B)%* ŠŃQ;A^}+O3Ԩ%x(-Kp3lqǕr K-LvR`Y_ ;,5d~KV}qVŒ&c]'f"U,!Q=? /z4sϊê{2Jn(]_0oL%[kښ5={Պ=$)^"M?4.=,TͦK;Y~*dJæζ2Orጊ޾K6<|îc~IM p!Cdo'IUr[Iuz%)"o1];Vrk/9t8j5e: \uuRیyQ(8 B4`u{Fba^ ASeix!g"aWu^^Ob%F_b.yqʻ~=-k4 B* 3sY]r屮YEm1sHwJWE$[-*(Q.fxSdJvX LDNrO#rtMjh/5k=宿1i |Gזo_YfpK_YUeWqV?rJ{\wѸV]JgdQ(|[wZ6 ?j禙}̈^Fz}ː[w-kheYEw3@$_ˍbo]z W*>c6msPl݊܆/yhԯ9j*wdm NEiУ2־e}'+>,`~qɱV3\+}a +*[ST׈ c=q ^V5gK[9Q.（QOqجzoڰm*p鯢Vsz;K'|̇}*8P$:Tq)z &P~RS۩vg>}?L&[&ۜm/{4$8^.~`f|W_ZQʗղvCZtԥ/^ې-pj飯8xؚ(39vw^G=c껥3bծJ^+ӷV?ѷuH/rK׽X$z~ŝ"$[iux'/qb)B-F egT}5xӤ'\yDU'2D{D\&+{"hcuWyx3(9&Sox;5_U~)Ew5,-qAk@o C*xp0?:ؿqAt&FN=xUJ}hRpTCa>+ VxnCk43 [θugnoVbΟ0~Vtk4[ϖW_:H}VyviȔ-SUo(uߠ05#]mE A6(Li,''~<(!)G3nQ*^l;2f9V{>b.GM}=[-i[q2XLͦp9v/[Uu%t#"u9cWGޘo}V^۩f4X+ms#-[sJ?$oi+|XPbF8Zͱ6d:Yڱ:}VU<}ǚUK*qqMz˲G/#76=1+vmb1@NϫwƮiv-S(O&V$&u L19mLi9{faoO+r? Z|ۥ|Tk]+ɨ;-Wc1G,X{EZ&|=Fn (>VgoոW3}5+κ?avvaaO/_2a z)1ttefۼLdx~;μܤ_)YqOsj$ZLdt׽<[O}zSPhմ BLZim >0ew,L7/My.pf NFz/qvGVIYd4OD?\,zg~'JYw|'vT2 1^鵢NO|VM;.2jFNxM[%]nxnM]\\2+UYE,=(rMzAmĨ~z oz-ڏ݂NExٽ,!us&$s9b7 gףlMlWݴzPdfnW쾺DXvnnt'⩚ ֱEG8 i3kϞcO[O!t!>l+*FTs^^p = jSgm먥9qB 51aA!ll {p p/<†S8  PǑXy=grQkup|w؁T(b;N3#MK w>?YΧggܑ7wRch #LӇL9&i#uHN`0Å-v@pO#MWA_\Hf78$>`Gp>MPCY@ 8'z F4ptsWF{y1,¼6!4 fhJJMfI¹" B  t  X=z}&\c]%E]A,K]Y  t FQ ؖ~  tp Ŀ(X0@ 'SQ_6,ǭ(z!bC@@ ǟDE_Hu54yGP2lb#bLh!GkflaInf pӠR9rËY/Y/#>Of00лꞍ“ E|A_O3O73OQ8?c` _0IXzt7u=JqY/ &O[1L[u=LDd Lh6tA{yt. S \ |BUR({@:L_Y@Mo.G)cm!C!> 1~rnrr 3h~3bm(tqs~x y@\cX ,ʼn,O<˭=go>h>l?aӊMZ=Ĭec*J=7̟ŪYV I嬵ʎXt|'UTt+,|0Ỏ<g8B8N`EB 8b#`3Q`@f h CE. XKX @ϗ k9|^^Pވ d06+ J $㵙bg`'C Yz!:zErvc$k^aeźZAp]j~'ԇ< r1%t#c)Vk! mUKOss9Kg%~Doex-wA"oQpNBVwe' ( ?>$@V1PNhibmc`UP,-}<krP Hq~$,:A KX%"uM"Edxb`J@xmGB$yAU"duᜑAܟ X ]}&/T+ M%^b8aC:MPY)<{:{8#H꘿Xo76aA^G?Gzq6(D ʉ_Ǻ H}3X,o(!477U"A:.ߥ<9ՠX ~Ƌ,-zD9l7|@eFR ,>D5% u9^>\ y()>)J*^SA8J OYBNY'5fB'qrh(4WA o [ ʠ CHq aι b!97(O#):k!!+X|-d^ ZBELXƲd}A ]5 8BFYoeQjD%8aӕ@Lf,=o S70Ӻ@X"Dt_ q h?w 7nXB1uK ֐HlۊbfIʑH? Z@ @hl]wX^ BV(pX@|X e g`H W+gC2^@V,fۓ!2&/rg9!D5²ۙ?Ҿo:b.|yvc)Q^L~d-pBݐcVXKxCt3%Ս]Ūb`$d^ ؏OX3`%}R d36B@'^kK!dA=lY(gi>z@xJb/A6p|/\GC  P8T~/ y ` 8yZ d1o!Y X.a?+8$s`!u{̲ Y"Ћ^;qfYQ;zJ- \Bu&b``XK; qI?zF))WB^`̐z]``)F} YVsb!k.JzzC"}FXְ!{sUH"c~"zAbC=v5m< -8bX*?Ng!5f6< e/Y5tA@@wb{ @Hwaq~?_8aӕ@L׃s3{!Sps!zк@r,}ur0l/\-Ho@l?Dh(5f&N}pVAB v" 03;gO@V:,BJ2X,/(kBtE=p.Aև~c`B,xXX,w,dm``!ء5^@=YBVe>zIOv5 9[/ I?αK' eA@D@pQt@bY~,VoeHlJb`]#dͅ .d k#zi EGR)N&BV8Qǎ 1^|="oP>5ņ .Ls}1ubnV=]dɀ/!{/(oa?Pr5!t߀X,5%G> Y ]!2p 涏,7(k‹ d}D/Rbu7+utf8gAЧ(讎n6s *R#B146<8=D 2X JXo76aoCwA,~r<`u(~:<){ 2 t_rqs$,O(K2 ,#aCY-S@1^)D< ڿr|]l9r17 :DP 򁘛UB"G˗b2Z Y]4Hg& /,h,(R#,?⬇ <:p#r@!բ\/o?rھoΥZr(:-bZ%yc ;]#HWϑ@ny:,vׂ`ƍbZ -kEKkG.2N8JfW׾o 5͗G0]:m-/܇)B,Qniޟܠ ?F|ܬ:BFX0H"[8t("{,h0VG+9ԍ7/gƃk6r7GQ>e1X h3kX?X%,RbItOH|Fq2BmA+Q{,T?B9cրXok5i"u f`m dk9łt9a8AV3a$́5k%! ,?B1d`M_Nk5-&Qd%BXI "1)k'#łf9hxaM#3~K0H(5> % ~6 ^7ckzpNQ ,\I0"`!.KM;2UZA 9vbf`]XvO_ np"@h&iTVl@?CZH'?:|j`x~1u lekLù%yܞpr{vr998G]A4@F;A1v}nap|:[+/@΀}Bg@\"yty d%@jXKV  o;/^ wmؗ@ wbn\{o*c`}Xt3b'cەny` ܺ/lHXl HW\Cd}'`!Y]-9dP} e`"ccŒ{ytZw>E< ^ 1;dЛ|w2 tDY YslkJd`Eo$$5Te @x!23j YaP֗ d{ Ӌ e@xu bnvB;] ‹U yU17K|͇@hXjub.8&gW<[<ܼIt:uG\_ogT`F8TC["H]EM@ _ࠈDN .I3n.Vv˽r^#Ky;s'Mxgn d=:Orp%n\IR wɠwiIp.xxH K2gUHPw~8a'^iPOu};=dXɽ:8w,23WL48xa=XkJ;' 2 5_*XQAYK룒5 ΍WeS~,iV!mA\_~|yQ}Iy-"8Ӱrv5GZǹ@lyBj y;yOTBnC[|mۭ5󯏑ق3+x@EV0>> 벨Qy~ <WeXBb9(2iul5X{E;լQ5$[fְаJJ 5"*JFu%:|>Ķߛ}EY} _ E˜+"~Z'зޢKx;;o { оnd{KuCǚBŸǿ>Zi?s5ˆ0sݘ{hL; ɡ5>voVY'c y3e-~ C9'fu^~RX0:7քa17c {g k4{PÚ3D5zܽDϪCz?޴Ts~@݅ʒF?mE7r$$Ifq!vh#v$:V l t065$p ytTaDd'xxp  s >A?Picture 3""`}wi./t`:}@=`7QL'u]E`xTT]PAbkFZJK@D[foֻ9w'f.E>ҟ'K ""x#+T"{ /D :+[ZBVDO?zT$T:D=D Rbduo;@5 ]fob AԀRV.0'Djk:X.N0c;,-EZ>M5Jb{^kTX8GIkPO}ބdtrk!/c#bUk2+$/W.jl'G&r\NE rQ(`DEH{WŤʡ)R .cF& gOq6ߴн+@C]q1+j_1`%p)<gѐ$7j/qYY;lpWL\䘘x{ yP;͗Ē.D&JV^b;gz# S^T-Y߲SqLP|tվτkRվN٨om{.O6Nȉtx;Ȕ^'ilٖIڅIBޑy)#yI^?GpgR-S[j=Df<{8Kl.[UO\ZW\"֦fH#J]-Ex4DHpmJEt<l!HgH7PM-:i`R0+l{onjSgq$p^PP A*R gXkuqX@R|@-ab SiJkHefN?pk{Q)$wL5ڂkR𪪬`Ѣ}L$i0RbCn(r6vCr7 iUCD G$;3,T/xMF%.̎$?d^Ϫ;PP|^A ]l'6l:HJOGF>>@s_<4LI1Ca|5(Z2EEK$"Dru9 )g4?޷=7F(@z`3kڇ&rɸo;x 3^6zYrߧ̂.nN?jM|'_*QT!8[[H6lk|ٯ@NSw.5'y@+K /x//10X͖q1\/o~^Pc/)>Vqce![mG~ ƁbtҟeGIBaAA(* % -0rU==TOqEB90^KħU'Dŏ9@X#"tDBވx}wDEoFCC86?,y18ӭӮsu%3<^tDϛC˵OMvw Ä_#_]NTFG-\z*.ͅ5qbd+q`AL} gR6p ݖgs_wTVI &^(bybw>. iEI/dIdmhժTN$1579Еe6nxaPYa;۰ eG pԩ?`WqAF$;LeddWEk]?}]8R*zL d^-Dob5aH3Լ)%FX&I:(]eqBEujڪ}þK_swWVv2%wƥ;^Tb>|~\jEen1եA]\.["9R#&ʠ P󹁓KE7 s덇ک&PERAA]V #<j[ʭ' 6mǤhΜ陝j[CBB"l=U)2T1fg'-7$,9u7+W^8\/{=,^Wk8C姁/QfN{_gL~ }k൰?h[ȓԴ/CqDlw0P-̲rٖ˫e>>-!QTMYI[V5v-UI+ѭh>?//O}ѷ(.vZn _<xmymK̔UzlʼhPkzqr!fj RȹG]{c+m7#پ-&}{6#?B.&O~[//n}vpsiz|i:_8/'ɽ!aYqq1cgS.?] _|Zi'ckk'L |.Y*R{&Yq)XժuƗګl֫ȣW|;|p*<{Sh ߛ(@$ߐARVjws(X"$~e8b G[?m$ԁb[ oPMYL2 }@i }H PD"j &SMiJF'r8lc#d_I`#}I4M#C%gnA' M)=)b%/Qe z( B5)L^oc_y2`Kz*91ML_wt>ic|Lxj*Gw^ x]0]@ Mg!KX6,fe+yIQb3UHG|Z&y]2~0-juV+| PmSתISa#K:PbljG~NܥVf@5!ea8 %wE@|ŢP<1(bY0 ןoYFFr(HB.?n9̻iDc(I(.VoxjduG1}gNɴh"]oIifWDd`^IJ42fR:94*l9\S Fz7wxw3Sd"9ĝiPɧH{m=̀8E~hQ&qP]uhodbbcCzvlo@~JFՃNIIpJ8(*؀ L!Ww>(urޏKJ3ߟ4 KHl8<@AdM+J"^TFnHiC5ys*V$圱2?ƓpdKRJR󚤙gg/LN:(Mi+S~AJˠKȲ R4;녤:v3Ŝe]C cQOͣwڲ(W 5g9c3O\*LhO۩T?;T[DwC\d:zEoߌA2!>lݔ.d 1Ia'4J ($e'~e.hJE~Q?xQ>X}/UtJ>AdRW1|QC1D 1.?D {P̈́SUTGi~n:)p>VC-,#" gBD_⪦L!Vhx%V@ŐE ~WS*WVlǚWs5n4_:<8=8>n3:NC^*|8ROG46XSlf~&&*>& --Gi&oVʼY"bo ېۗKÐXpN+LC5<h_8h5l#k=7c*8)Pk;P*^g<`zGmqJ@Mwj7E2ieYkޔ 遯Uc*lc;'1ѿ36;p8pSWsTL//).wҜԔ/C7%x U9gu TiZZYYf^9Жo7I(9cML W8{ Y޿S>╄L;#` I^p.sk$ xl*g+VӥԚؑ(&ݸ:'6֟4A윛epf.ƞ11|YeYYB~N{_fv'~mͯ\ nV&Lt.*޵sk+=1skʺvitY/GD!Fz,̌̎n Bߖ8 23-TX֥ōQ!q%t yۜ N"; ۴QI(MX44林xTXta9$cZ!%n{7c+Z= jP{IPNInvœt5K0FWv:Y3Ci3\զxʆM}چAhkó`!;މD5|nj'!޼SuiJjlY+Qj^̩7h[ӽDŽg$29/s+zk-%GI=gXLgjHu^>8_&)XA'?RC7 ӣCC}f|9de03tJ"e>#"a&>O<4]j諝غq`=5tReKnCE+ԐB}@CIGD34Q;_ kmU9ͥ :2{ ͧW- p[+~kzBzMzci׃jW}mg{uy5vzg(yCެZÛQ;'}8ӂ=M"`uլr)deءiD[:E^4{}[zQDibFVdFլ]ł&%Pruz Ϲ!z~S)\hso%\aȰ*Uhyfocre>Vx[]ul.z_w٭nLHn(U'hfBuKK3M_n>g^Ng|{% b6TqDtp"ځ̜V8)nbl`8s;fr7пT]M\~ 'W߅bRPqmfio #s6urtqpK#H=B_ :?\iYX ]ܜw+>`.D_<ʸ!k@>0r-x8X<@0x\Zy@ "һv77ц qߍ B௿k)s.W2C[c Ď#n~9V0bެ@N>VN>EFLE-lPpQ\a7vYYXx]`vw-KxLM9y~+Gr޿Y2}9xxxwD04&O|v2A I>iEÈxMNÆAT85ZmΥwǧ a'mUߝOvZڷzv=Z_{㼨r9-5i ?pK)c=hٴwoÀn';n? ߃t*kƭu1aLOPow{-7޸6=^7nٚ׿ymf<Ձ?+2Yv OF)߃A;:o? E 2qЭ&Tpe-L!dxeIC7)I.Q8&[ѿR{{|!(Ec8ƌN Ǽ٥Q[[Zb77Ro7y||y?^w ?/-YrGs ~#>q s?NT t #pwݯCR_fėοD/iR,sO~zV;GպRŶȠ3wF8C}/gh^JwK(}O9.ow ǎ }苇·;xB'O>ɢU*_R»ү>={t ?zp {%^Hž!{hC.ឡprAպ5T$ QC層B }@s ||k ]Ox .cesAs>xKo&E NGTYX&"\TxN7N1B(Z'$-()IR*ʱ)]ne( P+ڈXwJ*TSPJh+FL-vLuQHQeTZFm;NQ:BPgnQʉPGwb3Pgg;eQHs(-lCw`wp;֏{GKfa-e+fklKlͱ-+lGƒ *[p}+.cP%vz3D>x0ò :_ -0 wH[Rd=_4/i?Z?3st7:!z}mk4 mD QCTZ_AZPz =jP-43yZh(QE&*GP:2@) z%JAS~yumS@Ca.AoU(\^Y,-).*,ȗX4~Qy=naY-f zVVe),CS(N8Y1Ldꮿ0gdAtkuL}4ħP#zҪE(ZƜCѬ^2ÛSRX$LXl7?q9RP]*)0~eꇶ$(eJK)85:6yfuk37n׶Q{sؤ. UslSmݕŔ~b,ɷ5A'~\?]Zqow( fN%yKD/GDg-^Y5jZ>ѴDd4QXC;FhO ;6,ޚMa-u$ٲOfd pkāaow U*a V Ci|*PFN?݅Qc]]@1\CDaj"A&®5.vgwY>[ķKa7h7*rY6(:+D5R"Ne61d"lU3@NʢV権(H4 ѩ+ ; +=:"yZT160AtщFtF%99IthUw7w٠Z#F<`T AJJ~lzF)f,<M?v΋;.* AҴ^ *Mΐschgx=];t{z>PFQOx7~{'B)ЬAg^ND7}/;lDlbN1wKEYmuY=mY,ur:U; ƸtZgVg++e3N%]Ylp.v2N32s;Tqh0-FX$wDB (0q4.Ȼ,)oV)\AĻ(j 6+]LcQk1gٷVnhg=G?ڹp'{{`qq+K;Vн{<|O|?ﯚ{Ɩ-̾YU͉QlZ>[o×-W,iEGwcOY&ŏP~]\] cUVK XsɲՑK6ӷYj /g+* ep"2tžvi-];_-dZ&LP=粣Vnv0KZrS V"+V|&W?`Cٛ[Rf0PYڙG%suzIeVea%s]JsH"!ɫdX,eD@^@ɌJV?"u2Y"% Dށ5M'6Q1p߬ JV)"H[CGo82$'b݆Xa.YwEu(t<=kP';9ҦZ`Kcw,g9Vmʕe*C;X| JyJ}ʪȂoTU4ֱ֜`U t yd&Jve&;TѩweVz2&QY8,PG>E݀;|$gl?y{upG. d#6nw,*Ri2O@1c#)ª)i>ӈJקBF?~Z OдEXb ŠS7ox^e|ȟuj}A(ئDb;mSc>f>Gը2E꙰MT6cTmt[pt726 E- Ln2clfcxgc/1 `P1 2G#}%qH^2TV c%"Ą[#yʚo|P C ʜ5YTYTSվDp5ɣKn6sgsSO2WVIhV4{8{ޕǫi3?ot'lxDdɡ*IY@"xll˖i]50_q?"&ASVZ!:xw!Bp)yŔDpRAkJe Ӹ1 dpƖ&a]R?7-視FLf#[mYSR75*_]QV7 `Z~!R'W2RlER-St+t=m~( fFC/bKo4ҕ=ħm1mIlD l9Hƙn/\L 5X5!Fr,7(Pcm;*cJER~vbf s[(UY7<ؒ3ΪGV{[j^mϞ} e:k{[t5l0WcD8 VeC70 8;Dϝ6wHX&XޑzQʝ UXFr?N  )2( T=(xxׇ3S~ $l\~b`"tWF 0^^ΏAn r7d@~@m8;,N "_G"ȿA ͙t{mމ? Le.ȼ/k{&qZ fDYO);fY8G'g`_ }*icv#>ةy*HsQFL`beH$9Yi'e7Lr;R Rߍ;.(Xp6CDЬ!3/Fe/%:;jȋF!ȴEn;,7ZGtC^|>YP/ +u1I4&a0S1%q[:,S~kJ=  P`3jœ1 0#+y:GÊ1q19MWvٱ4%kN4J(1x0wP^0N%>r!M8^K~II:-& XR$R s9Bӟ(T-yi2N؟ƆZc}MLbgZap{mQ@K|δ!356շyX*"'# 2P dȉ%<)g 8-K؏g08ܒ;w+8OTJip- vGEX:>M*Ϩ"^~Crn61=0?miR[ .-fmIgŋ4r8!P/K^A63,o._TعNm݉ |ӂK"KY'J8 87*]]8X{|xxcbX*Z*A-m'-qªNl&Wg + p)T N (teَ'atMC˲ O^%޸^-ks6 +tQHcЍ#*  UAV'NLM~n@ٝIJX snSPlc!eV82@LUׅ~ 2fM*bڼa n&}ZűvhX6G/sWʘ TK͙g k?\?j+5ET/:9$&t\yifcSp] ,>1O﫮6'/7lu@A}5?Rև XZ>돔׌~NKT6r<RNjR3n/٫2_SMhSĕ{ 'S"TOYvf ][oe6ClfRS6'gyQgE%7~qOWeK䮎2}rCBi+rjĚ8 )۵ }2ghxhfϋZ]\|;r˖>|[W4~;/9 |eՋM}nFcMtHbCF-r,iBLIɳv=rm!ͳ$ mjJ+4QɞFsϥ'lV}s^V*%,N.J[{NQʪ\je@5FUnV^=3MB+Niw=魝6e3n>,ԳCՌ2iMT76ssW/94]SUQ뼯ORh(X_Z9=[}ؕ}H1]ƀT%N7k*0z5., 0>VI1rQ*R4ӵJ].:uh**O[b~}4 5_Uë IQO?1N0[H}$΍a{V40P[9qO}=*r]e^M}Sb 39+_M=tċS.'+%.3MoxT~޽nXscwGMev>18qd m, *&YxfwXpWkZ-o~c⮇kTb|#C/s2%M:UssR?*b`~v|K)' Lis/Ru]\_^+ }@aT Ս?; #v܆*Iq/S3W\oW78՗: ȩUڳ1#x\:p1YdLCp>qgݖ 7w ,nnZw~/Uf=O99މ{jz.(\3lgg]v޳WNs?0*oN|+Ŵ[O\uK1~:(wrwI dWu0Nf˧ 㗌5Nz)A= 5Lvk7m5rZu%7\VK_5_s^~ʲV71)f1D/P( x瓯o'&J`h=ή\qz_<\xAT[fD2 : "9kœu Ev}M,e; LM{ÿ֜Le-+%\1S""-`ϰ$Hº.mhyWV砈p[x픜U#3ogD `傩qOLy7n8flbwV;N3 iyk}aJ4 +3pg Lx߷V]OYss4A(qowYScs a{!JW Y~_njQ&-:DDq  '\""`}Q3"< |;>|M}}ͬxipA˞?@x,|=iAq o b6zBWiIs(4C t05B=႘Rm-Haa~>4 %mbڏmwsS!8΂cV \0J@EPT D$m;b)X5˼6MM_~7.M;>fm:SGu؂IggmU?z1?61\im@2x9Ez1<rF82(a9ؖo'psU {UP-3{yB @m7f\D;Psc z f!cBYwP{,8BG0xО]A? E}A8K%Kf(ې% d f$d u `aud|QҔ#Ⲱ}5A0ZcE]o.0"^( ?芸\`Tp~fc02h-7>c; @ M 09:mA6 L:5F,4 #)I ´1#d +$ZIȊY:DrYẌ́,cvdayI4>Ьc,sh5ʷ_pfca±!:Gt> ΟG<5vl,Qbx.wE"'#*y8ojc 3v~>IJl<228;&Ov-fba5bI#~΁01+ΌoȯՃ= ^gdDKTL˳(08KV A<]68nL_؋b <Ȳ &ُ,W0+f](Ԟm< C[bb=|#+:FAGS6sY[Voȃ azBVb!Y@,|0IbW$b <Ȳ HYrfa#dh 3!7Yd>$  ea] dE]6P^]a4+d@Ywt5MȊ'KRXX4 {{E9g'LJ$,3hV!! e{ڥۋpmS)A.&': Y aIH#aB>Q,+: d tHd+cG,Yx%4}j'#26¶uH?v0Fv Y~Ps525$%چyfYH|ȅ=AyY a3$P,YECd +e AƊ6 Q>yYI ab YaPv+=d + $".^Ayx8 a*'*vDC QLȃm aV%!KeAX!YFRdhcp~ 'D=렰A*NoM򢟿5P Eh<χ6kConP^?aJaNPfHxÿw#+  tl#Y,"Bw$k:͊ga)+ZhV2 +Eh2ЇXXE dw~qDC(O2iV0!+X6 QchnaBV]{h*̇8GS@ Y\($ʇ@iL]W8EJieBiBuLf8Nn2Y0iV !"Z<iV# B {]U'Ar>n<8. ǽ)p>g 8GA`{gCLv$yfD@8V!4fy,?=BThAhW( H|Hzm#Y,((OrCXX Y\` Iq k 'ẕ83c~!ZZJ H%4 #|}%dqE,f}]#W2pl䲰 Y. Ӭ"0ί!2ЇgYXy,_( b]_hV% KMڅ 5E:6nҬ{,2B՝i\_$2 }ײ^IB<U2H" MHByip*/ڗxo  籾4 Yc"%ał-%05OD̥yYxaN#M@` c* k!+ʓ3Y,,MgH\ k +E4 jxŅ _o̜#]4 ja;BV$gbќfcaYsԇ*caeAyo(Ь,, e2b#jc@UŠYcGdwjDVG<8Fg@޲TE>2:BB]c X+2{8 AHBBL/ 2 !&>p!٘z<*BF 净4AwA6i< f<@rT5w|8O`chz8í{Zصj>dy$$IfA!vh#v#v:V l t0655apytT$$IfA!vh#v#v:V l t0655apytT$$IfA!vh#v#v:V l t0655apytT$$IfA!vh#v#v:V l t0655apytT$$IfA!vh#v#v:V l t0655apytT0wDd)hp  s >A?Picture 5""lvooy*Ccf|2Hv@=@v9Vytj` RvxyUX\Ͷmn% N] $Cpw.{瞳y8w}֬5f1 ؽ 4wpKPBAW ?f^; {}Iˈ.7@Iq?5Ղ%XِA'eW@f 2??I R2IZ۹Z;7sqs9PPFGΕJ낛< 2n T])P;[q-pxsJn+ 8fJx8j2.-YH9>,Z:4hC rc)p䗔y{\mOÝ&Mn7Z>S#&h$]Yق7rÏ轤6DG㜷ea6.D\Q/Ufc[*cщ哪Ip6\8_Gf;l <ǽQ^V-5<L?')n;`):Vsm_秅z\E&I $4 r_=DzxigZ|iFBŕda`E IKnK<$_,&U9ʹ,^>*w~i|LW:Qڿ,3 }T;%+mZw0+V :t64/swkHhbS'i~Oզ fHqy. 9~+} v:]TfArb}uiw5nHc7ԨYZXUh7 ST8ty9l11dHt3,1pfyh&<]N2,Q< u9ay0S\"b2;:<[/Qk*ì=Y(߿Z]brN~njx0G/c%FꀈK"8B|t$!x=%579rmౚFR:p Ye&,b u[ ".ASvbk A{#5G^g;Bʜq܋7ai=cvqh!\ 7-߫ 󣺽<+)G,j-,B㶼. A$z54\u _ؼkvn2,89W&rxk_M}iLyIPAoQ*{2Fra7>=(h]bXuKU1"ҸS^-TkJۯ{?!êM=VV4ՖO(w D7rZc;;2dk5ݧIP m2z [,l{OhNG7޸'O4,da\[xe؍OnsVPXD4Ɋ-e18Ƿ%X坟ڨWSt'}nBgֱ!4^>q7bV-H>BY^}>M4)äMΦ5jL#=|((# *s9_!mC8y#p m/OSҥc0ҥӊg)cJxo#v]R&{]n(CR8qE$dA :Fpm^#GhA'; -G(q7TХ={lE8wRimaO Xo & RcAADœgeZmoR xE/",j? _e(vJy{hx5LѸ^r53?v~W˓ͧv6}7:d}3hijj)nSEc8v>IܤJMVtNVg Ih\odЍ*F+լRxC -o.wοpRo~]:{vW8%u+mJAqOevQ'1{x  WQt9rrew#yKJ ' ݿ:=^$ޭd~0C*"95^#:N{ ;?e`e3O!Gu/'s ?_s7 ۿP /+| f&@=W+Iw^13/VUvq^ӊK=݀@&1G;G5'9se5++o,(p_O: 矈WeayMo,@&?Hq=R.&^;.BNZ"|&&<̚Je!nF>8fyj. NI\ ^UKRm 󝯥f@`8E3@8ۈ͘bnFudarh},'d~}E1v:p>!ŘKj`P.A)dE顈C .߳IVf2&_Bf^FRg`9S:[=Bo~!}$CJ%sY6$J_G'd 󗨯 ' T )8]6T{x E:h~ 0,CY6]}0ńJtӺ= FX DGQ_IA_F>d';cߓ*0{C3+DSV38!R&IewN$2GV,QN|$ u0Q}Du/3G4tt-^4|fR hQ~< 11b6(\r/f*nl^7g$V(d:ah7]~~^E$] X^ (;(ld#Pd,гrٽ=:f$ŀ$> N8k |m/72:9 P16[dűNz*q2)߷cԗh<M'nC }5Q}h`؎2R%%:2z=}oTZ!;g&wT"D~qlYբŠ (pS}ɵ"E!` e1oG,H|6)y0N@= &H!],CJ@(bC׎Ű(#SEjQ|958\.Yl$_/}0B'B ;Fa$HŨʽɾٚC]dXtV\d V"bO@-fSeZM5-)d;sm%=eM=9r1ЫeQ)[JRk&+g#dDH+*@gdQV/vOIު5".yefc՜l0"/)L40. Up漑f$Uŋsy+tx|Yu^̰u!7 xQe޽>Mǵם!r #šM^LU}/Q_/2QjC>\`jc>fҨ#0U:"|΄*aE55T><8$e׎ k 2)If-,0ugNء1iUhq\;e?<7> F `n `C$ccqTCf7Uљ ̠G(~$EiHe48T󪱪r^2%ߍ7+2SCm#ɉ>*=LZ d7i*ɴ+tj*k28i"jJ`%W=.p2NVWYXRXf苴sΏ}Dz?e3dǒ98hrʮutVWx$u;Խ/FF4U5WVf]f+<^>~!=|ݭ,,yk&k棍 ~͂̈́M|ȼTЇEQ3xEl0σ1JwYV^_3V'E2J,-,J,&γ2ڳʲ:PI}+ا\Ԕչ9qެ/X_oʓ粸wT$fFђS3о3sk95#ZAvX\Q,8\2TF_Z,W7꓊BG~kƓmw2٣'E8BA-O>* jF8fJ8[nuZJZ]?u>u ۆiq~}ȍs\,?c}8+[K;:؜WAT; p y5j}rms{9FfBڣycec=Af&ʲVz$qjC(z8 ~F_)&T: 18R*7*wE5E?>EV>p,6Q6 (98|nI95P'jURR-du\G%ؘ@ĔщYVQb Yljkۧ(fS|q@`Ejؠ 6ڢЦL>ObdIvO+iH0">暇[4rye7d[| \nfWTe<ʅniYJ{=_LS0oْ..h+n)کODBYKM7eZm$wt^{s2N _oYJ&Sr"kz#25"/??[$0!@*.N'E#yi{hl_;fioQy)rɭF1mciJ{%/+ayfk,JVVVNB3ޗOWuZδ k + ` ƬvZ7w g,gnOV1=Jc&tIdV\/Y䯄p}ŢHwtkt}*ynA=6/oiƓ" kA賝R7iQ0V Vva|Sw0tWďk^\wn!yƹ]'dz#u]Mgx>҄ހn@;|{132f0 ݌ZU3usͣJ.l*r9\qLmRO5ҽ<XGJ#љXCh~YNӾרVnkm"U\BѧrGeœ "w#O?JH 1p¨rhLQF sLDu*=N .]3.*lx^rw.ddԕϓ+I;u3La7#.lb,*3+3Ro6X^8- oʑ"8obf|k RAf{"dMTnk\S'7&-ԏfSc{cG_﯈߮zY-)uSREj+xS\oADHY>i\X(@eP*q8I,ZM3(w` `%KL^q[$H FӐʏKR@w077m@m^7cwPP=R;22ʥo軕\_qQ%8Y_`GShYYX ݖеQLvƴ+odb` A[E2;ly3N(V Khbr?O zU.r#li)RzS>HOXfZT (}UY ٙC&ړ/TS"1:vLx[Jݬ]){xj%p hȾ" 3LAF>=sʳe;8s1vK_(B\bTN||=mezb>;gءa2RhU{v<rhv'5-/GEaQ FC wɂ@LY 1a=g h \#A6%߳-ۂ' @f- QxfFRh6%m»b xbO {P kY!Hp }bI6_YҒ\J,vXW㣮\ R=JA8*,9)B1z)N'4ZER@&XĭUa\\[cscΏJ9Y]Ab)_ S C 69z([bc}Y9IG/<1X+[˻hL$0d DkfpfHYM//<69<}ilklB6Q2*v3X3i6r̖T 3%ccnciz/ۏ!P{X6|<|D>۔=ZsM:hͽ:]eSʚ0 @J@QaYQLF-.%7a9i&u& ,BFYFnDP8~Pjgaַvt #bPć>nzo--4ɈAYUe}Xծ9{ Gsv岆Fl&O7wG/:$04=cz%Cz Z uڃŞ+#`Qhn]YÚk1/Ers  @{H++Ms ppq<| ڋjJ`-Mcve4 ٻi\ FBG1c}ִR\ĞkMʼS4H"? v IkbH! D0\JLwOo\W.䠹KsšUHoa\;!;0Mמy#(ď}H^JuѨ`(&*)j`r@",GM|PWlFBVK,QL:Q^f[<5q!!zXt;"uuȦPsXS4<$ӀO zG>?NmZ<%lEuVoȗ406eէ "4]O''ljDłeO3wsEWGsc5_͢E^UuÌщ׊HI _=O j}(q{h5398LZ-l㹟3ߞr8/Z&x`ty$w'!xNecvx_^FvY9YXgWN;ǃ1hD_rb+x'o?2E NB#.*9̤b.bgwYϢ Z_@+U3N"lM XX_S0v6@vkl\줬\m{߻8{"߳<\vnW8H9yH9YIYy~k`$e$f!y^W^{NfRW=6@d"bzAJ;89GoWqgԅ k_;h_f`c~peaxe+H #![3ߔ&!'ߌ?VW' 3sgR.׍J&6OEdkHG+ׄUyEM`Wß! ) ';;ϛN8ӴV:b}WW_̳XEmP>#M' jdCUnT11w7.@O{GRZkR^&=dU,A&OK$V>`ϴz{a3 0x&:K6Ԭ ,Am+N!ȒuZ=_\mU0P'kozEG u0-Ĺ_"Hfd֖.3wݭfCr{kYA:CM>+R>luW<[2]yaO‡sq??L `T|avaH+d){H0Ź^kW¦2%#m%N&"\egDPy^UG;)]qכ!mpgIڮr~'һ0&0 FM\|wsCpN|G V{;"~i._s106GK'8޻ wWN<ŨY|3 up385nV"J=͈U܆Gn7mbC(p럪(7w^"zBLu'Y^DCFۯN:oQB}Iqz%0f${NHp{Sog‚ҁ2SmRfs474+Xcm!v cOಷ+{kdmXl=}C `*ϛՄAЪkԐ*mW)n;'ljsT,j+X0]g͂!A8UjWpf#n$: :̈́=l첕zi&;0]k⩰xp4{F4>@4k A&o &uAk,w^3((L).e NgesCd[h0[н"sX(Wkpj'q)azR\!Mgp?SL{gӑӣ:E)DV#p`@,|ԴJ 0lj$8q>V̅i c Qn'rMXv @GIoT =l v>v}}d|ኮ[+}+;L 0sTMBj,Z,"sB)Z@3Kgg{K!X 1j2sJ,ݻJ:gT ӼNdW,;5Wo8=)cD{/S~ٞh5CUV\5 RĉI[: #YlmZ:قИMwH,cG#N)KNꖎP{i$Yy=T^G)xO67<Լ۳'Ў2{rAg]Rsv !cC8HNh*^t~ <¹84z8/&)&yRKj UFx:D.'ލO&#t8MĞ澟39F ؙDkMnGk|n7XN' ?"`,; 5T} H e6Qˉխm'kvvcV 5BqK:dy_\h h#\@}֙Vi6kЁxQuKsheQ Z&W_!]l 7SK$El:̴`S Ty8\IhI.!}3` { pp3'buW&V0""Wg##iNnNgKmEU++Fgӫmc2˫dȶ](~^]D_QV)ӊi ܉:yR')pi=ѧHb$^5]7;pi_au5H-)L? 2_.sH dt[ 7p ć< {"EZ}ؙ瓀huHv~@z,S?:|bg4ORZ-dxlWbcXݦv?;RԨ ׯ 9w#`G-4͹?[_wۃ(v4tAm+ >|N~Y](AGtkUy{q9ʳ@ЀD\g`-J)BkKG!n&~\c:ج،s=xyr;F\>5y[B/ToUlMK5DXҗ:`ҳ..]^hd}Yc1( Gwwog4=_;UĴ$/t{6R ]|Qz2̠{Ht}╘|^ԣrR~~]ALv ʓr+][H5O^ON~-F K}HVBs 2:. <\dոO.,g%hۯh=#"rX>rG,;,Ο%8T2d&-E9)C,N jL!9ˮu[ٸ,r|Q@2SI]ȶWDQŽ'?&"De(aC`+'4#8HQP)bv1{`%5ʉfc[,+Cs._i!դ53|z PfGq$kLn-n˽Vz)ڹ9"IJx\ᩏ 77ʰt~ \mf#6UL-3 /q 0Qa/*X`quǤ Dn|=uv$xa)'] 0H{QTme&wĎ>;5xˍ9( e0^b70A{~iAŜp؋B, uy,诏]NҺDG7:I2JX/ԕcFMo?֤@./K!w@ȯ?z( )S{nfըgifFhܘ!3h Rme;@PM#cF]ĔO߲*tvTFdg*U?atd:eǽDd9J2p%;`*Ey32Xb1ФeJ1b ބiC$qfk.5 a^*w"~QnUM8DԐ;s< #we;} iB$=+#5NoHq۽a[И=Ʊ iko4.LŰ|5yŲRա*x&TI7x.F&rړY0O'sfv5[6(`DWȅ7Jp@F"E 73,HQ)-,4$0zK Ћ҈%]W6B/iD׏E#ma7Tq}/nZduƾC.F\12B)o]MM-^\M Sj nY]R(v}^BZjqy޽}U?8 l5#rP4TdNf5t<oUFI& ~u G(=@-y-j 1ƥ:Lj>WTST9L;bqV -02Oyx̥ 5,,:%e; T<qh(⃅{dM o?H"Y 7j= aZ'A3!<6 $ffs*b3=,`G|g BJvAg ϧA8"$C h?Y6Au++8:j];uq9|#:d4bwB3w{rYAa4e eÖfo-hzς5#Atq$om3=Umv*!Ϳ"(0=o^vC1Bn d23aԳzi͑hRt̾zjVU[xH,_LjQE&$CQ]>O=:NG*ysX1"~&ұ԰AOR_}*dJbȨ2U2L|Z%?+ gGq٢&,ibY=2 Vc4Z:k\ѨG Db)]jM 4#ιr]8ҏbu?hȹľO^5U403ߕV'2Zє&?#Az *Vj\/d$`k$!VrO3V,",\HZ?ڊt,f9_aL^ &"ʖP6{GsS813l)19/ ~I\~ۋW*1 Uģ8&POֳSqRlpR1pfH HbdbRH4pRACB jnqˊ{pmAUs46X額/QkCi2 ė6 \ٜvW?QtꆦZ,ihޝ5篙@$Ӌ * ķ@>0`|EJq5e200vA&Rk/yH4>R1(p%ڂa5<\’Ƙu$VTF+hрa:tJ=1XR8I_1HEShbG1!F&'"3 ]\ٵK>g5$p|3S߹f75gÉ_V.j[2h*x_]r̍EkwF fTtQ!'+<9-"d |7d E%>/)]wkЖ?)DЕ2g@"c gZpB=uYrqFr)hz>C>[cm*$16uP1 Vži6/F(gްG8pLXj4֧\J"4 4out{ͭ3Xz(svmp'@ztMڬFcCJǓc𣌚Ua]kHYF;fK9/on0}娾\jTh(-a-ٔIgmGiY\X A)NYz$ .LyceHD o8OBƴAt+A^0cwJ LJK$7x4@i0.?r{"̣HI!O1Rlq Ņ*OY>o[ D֏}lmoc&I9EH3ɐHDD2\S II![p37""߻d{}czkk1V9h5~K1KY9^&RўIodʩ X8_ʛSwv{1w;Frnpd%M-; .u|Yyo=wu%o5cJO.(%,Й\a_=H[sױ9ڷ9RRҥ29ZqT!t"2?SpQc/NYg"V\zWsXS֬ m$s>7v((=mG,ʞ\>9_Z]I1ugyuMVl9.[3[A}^l>Ck#tbDQMԒZ#v}*J}jR7Tb*Ϊ8z܎fN9GE<3/r!mE'^Wb}zPk} uM1 2Ƨ\F)-r!⎓<ee+WMia*{HvK'6s ;* Ue5ZE|^+˲ (H%Kfm#rjӳM>a|]GԵĕbϲ lވU[6c׆"_°i|_#3eU^|ݶ MlMt:rm Q-qeaGj_9(W.MfvvIѕ+{:bœP}#՞+ZrˋC)rg<Ͻ?6O/ѕwoޤx'JCVOUHڶe;Ɗ+,z*Ѿ(ʳIBJYJX'-_Xlv+陟e"D$f+VnnHYkכC sر}LUGqb'ZTl1 &)- ݩET/^LRZwsvVݎ@~`sR;:C{<\JzUn:Sj&0[lMkoJB\ކ_fWg|lȐvnNӃ^Ut}]csM T#ƙ3K7]xĩs`Qܻ]y= ٯVq"aTynp^ZO>EÏd#qR!W/u$ ޫX!yzN1U>2p,jxpDev?c6Ippr0øAkocim./&jϹQ.=wϝnϿFedtD7C;Æt2UN'jc>@Z/v+ #ZܤWr=?&z$x|7m!'RY:.?^V Y)x;uG=y!,؜T%MN}HW|cˣU7-%o3ZYKy~hbɪAKڄFwy{ooК7i>ݴ7>59i%f(;9hŷB^ 7}\/ /=`Zh2j$ٳ'7E:Dޑݣ~KU.PAژ+(KcnR ^Þo aDZQ𠎥#swE5?i/sӍ+lw}}|{ƀajlX7ގ{tYq]VYFl9e^ıK8`=:|nדm Jng{g敜9-cT֞Es?D~[ؗƯ8]1[oJrTh`x;ʔeUMG F,F{m`w]}GC^&Ҫ%yj0>*dV)kwayP;hֵO_ń?l-*'җ&8V揶ݘZW\:"IztM?hoe=EP,Yz:WxUL-ţMsDƏH_YWܥWr]:?VvdA XW()/jN~j#+y[Q{[d ÓVFҘwigӷ-#cI<{cW߯aq}Wфmgvy%Cp6R9޹d}%7:8h K~ ]se-;(s=O6={dG{iĿ׸t캏g׭|,^벳)iRGa/v Mw*q6} ؔSǒznj'i:LKWopD!wsov|lm?[ GcX'ȌbDȁןC]F>=#Pi!SHzSdDkTkmwu/3:\ֹ]Eezκ-qJB2׻e_~ۜݯ/yKilyũg9gDz%Q./Yҳy_lIHVGi^cOMc/g4UM$?Un?O<↺m[jxLV÷vܴuG5&M>uhܺgK߃[_3Eo8q7rDJ۱gIہQ5}8qȩ*;}AːC̹ ~v:6 l-]<1|>Oѓ<6f̺xA~o.#.ufp!CRG RzfR(,Z˴ml*N(|b 6<7e?&"HbO𜨱 }oeL}ϡ,-W#s[Vɢ+KA Mq =3e>q}6]";#3.Px5{r~})doᚁoo_5֟NZq٫ ﵲDeTw^gd|X{5-%!vRWSN(Ә;fuP {޹%׻~ʫ>Zw^IzGk$%t(Jv僈N,erjD=ea)-/f ݋ ~y|sfDzicRyKǓGL7yϥ\dHg_r[#Z׹˛O6m! /{!AL +̯PY{q* wjnoRL2|{D;ry)$ ;-ѨÅ7"|ML-?QVsQWi{0A9fmKbuw.OkWjUhrKPV WK>cgyW4t#l!K84 'aykʚCˈ"bH7K' +:S9_+|@¾M<⪷)}{lYwE>7tHz9XosGq3w0AP ',0Y֦k4zՍ.a,#Aטw~{n" 4 $JX'~P"cPyfz2?8_|J]-|e*5ANq3YGVTUQQ*0d_U|NSZ7Qjq)u:ҟTT* ?)STT?(d%}0RJ(E4STTC0LaH1:FCK@7-w@̨{G >.D8ZhQ g5U..`3YIE줬A7a5NYUcB50 us0, vOPG2j#,o Mwى^L;y R$P6Pa2O&g;ô@C'QsTYZ6ě*8| *Uq qT@lz qs.pধ=O]WpTv1`ŰP67ڄA4f1;2i>f(N>J}GA>Hp'0y ȿ h mS2՘dig?XOh, Q7@; kڱr@[?%U\%?JŨ Sc^,"}z_x'P)<i -xEZX4ESȧi?Z.)u_v.[u5t80~araÑdʱINN"G$*+p|8ø at8ITN%pp*9G92l#t8dFG.V&|#t%T%AB3Eau'"8͘RjxT=CEE(rG19s'Q99M}!w>3t8ܷxjS:64>*8pjx/ Se^ ~Ny TN:p(t8B-{*#)Aφq_St8u| LT*?Q?Epϧr2s'6 Ct85^*8p<> 0sZA^@Yp.ad:uA26s8t8'Mm! sargFx'[(yP4\t= ^ BlIpj{=/mS`/ 91 3>Hx}%w -02r#ȏBř%낃^7B~rL MwøZX>k8Blsq)ùeKu002c*:{b!k*8,SLdaFdr:KR9Kʽ=;] t"mXDuGA 3ZI}9h'|>ƞǽ=5M riyZc&rV?_봶낃h7\cBl}IC=1z/]f:2fT{LLwYB*86t89l8r 9rF1sfP9)YYIqaX'W':0NX͏;'!k> NCK˔Y #b#a3q8:b&1 : 7~ `Aqɽ=wrxS= aˠفw}Ox`D8Nh}~@hm~~{@y~"]Y R`p.V=1Vo*G&G-I>c !:K!&??:2rv`MS Ե0謧g&@B<)(_O}o<Ѯ'Zov([O$p~K %-%.?ܿ[+)v>Ћ?_#w_X <5h A?x?Z3W)4v8]pş2`EXW?=.>onL/a~AgdzA \ PyjA;Dm@xwO o Oh=*;͵0370^C`~3 1v~Fa76u~H߻K~GJMoo8ڠ= řoc N940c\Z ,Sl >PF Bb`%a VbΘ/揹b։iko{i[FKq3b=jw3s3m=6P/ͱG~o~/GMtCt3ߓnc#;qv&wKGnO8v -o4hPD4pXb~ u]+ dji6̡@9fFV"1T-tݘĢ1u'Zg)hYSZy?g#n 1G oHc`8FOyN"BzZHi]Lj S8^Ԫؤqtz=6ȷ&TraI<c2^3GuZI~&ZHiuDˈmf~0RCa8}7Zs12v/ɁkE7~Wkd []WhwA/ykp+mL\rS#9`3'cxP|p[~ xAz+!ۑ-mP,p?S4wd@#`=V`=ps[(LT^ `9='|a`^ό*!0o#6q!ƚ-A&smE|$ }b(^Fmٯ 6!Q|64 g6Vy `>  Zn5i>PiiP@CzHi-Lh pC1OOKvRK'Zq3¬\ښN# &`_&PO7}C=U8:c74gHi1C-fK7Hk外Orf剑,g@~=c_3H3MZ?Ѳ8(3rj9b**h@cj| i ?ZKc&ict}B(^SG(5&3u,( q+4{p$S7g1II _ڻj9P jMjv;6y"\i =CT=S8 ߳O./kYB{T8`f/pki9jmVpgiyD |f!-dTf6hLi ݀ZN3r)gZhh}> gyk}V.V}Vzz]DZoxN_lBׅR@lu;? x ?kC,;*T7ݽ9u4V@Hk :7C5j}e HD2QPn kw;*+4$/ TjAΠGfDKlt0TQH5 VGU ӑNk5NՊ0Z`S-v*m@ (Π{}N=;s?vex!$7՛bUX;Q\G Cb_<)){VF2pc^M Ş19J_W.򙳿 0#3I.GWc͔wPO?@\-^+: jbk:ͱzˍ[Ojw:ݎD}NJ8 Cmq@31z8Zhdѷ7!ٱ㸠o?foO:w]fӎ)ݿu&ku-HZ cFV%XXl1z#Ybȯ<#k1b'zʣ֞;Gv# iy Ly%86IeB$UX֥% ~mduob}!FCV_=p ,1 #+~74XXw:K\q ☙gWo0[p|1bR ڌ(X{+=}qL7q;s-KF`bXYy-u6ıX5cKc jkm1j^FVx ٖ4V1aYڗJiq>0sA0Ī 1XDK?6luy+,z-,9ш-e~,@߄M>))"pwKy;ZJE了ĶbcT5LJ5dp$iܤqD[dSU.#=afpɳ[#N@Ntɔ Zz9qo@ٯe0v?-'T<{]K9]rb+yVmr},-lGRdRYfa]q-HkkqpLk]{ǜ$8Mx&bM^1cڊXIRgѕ~Z uX_7YKѵP `ʣ;Ic:2WIr_FVF5Ő_cjGגb`}uۈ"Jʸ_,k ~#kmH/Mx5+7$k${}%m_\S|h=}MWUخ^s}Fjϛaba_XH5neŐ_g-s,xx%v+|ӽo-FV'k:{̱ 3fÚ凞/=7eK~IY[}2ٱXYns,_Յ_^w,k΋!ֿlՎ_^ ~hdYKMeKوl1L9$K[Vޝ.S+~̞Z17{YAg6:StfgWWȾTЙpwgZvx)YLt=U ) ?^Íwv1MK+fgWjsO\DNl8p>vv|9GCR/3}t o~0e?Z9R1şOO}zV~Z»A'W~U]Xh O7ꜮtHG,y>6.~̾Q-mT]3/^ξ6d "h}&2~_oCS9v,ێ|LJCaNJ%;㬍FVG}C Qz)D ( ץ+*_&:B#kQf44/:'zڱ(X+Qco)lOt-u&XX[oP8*.9 z|~{xipw͚ 9Ɋlwd`?{iA<"bg&lRzƩռa_н=;xS}h9c߹{3h]>dzXy3`iaWQ{ZٗG QV=S4_!v1.mpqCmX6.z"ȺV6b5-F"KkKut?4<ٗ~Y{{qhK~XL ^ 1Br %6jK`ip?f]JFs}|dsffz3{TAW=:Nz\6M߻'P}m\&Vne鈥OxHgkdu{%2QϟbXPY] ,zНk[6: Ic1b _![Veێ;zʣۈ$pŐ_UH<#+cއ/WH OxOBγc`m6\l`! 7,~YX:9ȲSkrҜ-%E1d:80=rq~ O(xx]F3-<`o#ܺ dPam#$'S}.dʐn]6uï^"Z"ZeiDd558   A ?Consent to Search Process Police ask permission to enter Owner consents Police may search Third party with ostensible authoritv agrees Police may search Two people with ostensible authority disagree Police may not search Picture 1Consent to Search Process Police ask permission to enter Owner consents Police may search Third party with ostensible authoritv agrees Police may search Two people with ostensible authority disagree Police may not search "bdu,^мhd/Yn`dO}P2'^ PNG  IHDRP!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss }_ސt. O*]rr,WJחkfhts9պu*/r.馛V[mU˟J ]}]_vmEeҘYyÌ#3?QYO=ܳx; A{?KԂ|xnVmz7_L̹\rɬ׻ A:Q.hdS4][\"0  ڇM7 u2$] ڏ-gr]!g_VL Ma̴eqW&QN=j/ׄof8ˤ@;i:3@\˾>V /{9ڍdm_X8s>q{\lW cj^J4M&T6]j0ci`ׯp+GFr+_y&ҍPǼ% z0`.קc@3XB( XH'% ;^C:yÌ#3E9L $J[%h"<~]fl_PTX0?HD Hƒ} HD`$c+Y"$@2@"$cE XD HdHD +X gf$@"%@"$XH2V83D Hd,D HƊ@2™%@"$c>$@"0V,HD K#nݺꢋ.}ί<&y_]hlfI,h؃Α<\ c/Zؼo pT/}Kgnw׼f|(>|*3~ojw,;s9յuxF뮻Nɗ?a'>QN%^4[֝i]o~S=>fmbnzӛVtPa,{Hf<cl@~A$zOr˲ g"VEsHx_]91#xR"б}d FKQ~zT/m^[uYQGU=򑏜5kevۭ~j*Uo}[+_ʮT?UrʜuF3" "<*1clO2\|yh}3*j]v9bbPMoH~z򗿼x㍫nU=i'ហ~գa{XњO:j|ǜ'_u׻u_r#Lϴ8 v(,-oy˙\{[237 ~x;J{̇?>|5g?ӘfvprO3sg?g=\ϯ85@{tegthru+o~V4̓M ѣހX|w+/|1*?zի.NwzLQ͗ol~ɴg],uQ?{;Y|1O %w/Ƿm;)Qχ{Wm׾YgD8_1y̼G>]YW׻7K^i%2" {uW=@qC/|cnMWs}fՃcvW3]{Ewc) O~Hhr A/FKmo+2LEs>=S@hж3xD^0Yv /7R?ƛh,"`u<^'W|!cȌŃI5橐TmR;t\VF8ַJ{,&sDW8#310N}{pr#&qQWACc>?OO>yN9nx<-`4 Nޱ/}Ker:#nq[l>ճ+9'ϪE`cX<G3*O b6HP]/_fZ;NƲ:)SA_O~ra0uʩZկ~zN2!IOzR9O}jYHXnK.%}/>򑏔ZDEa6k֬>>W.z~1_4~^'ב<0S?_2#Hӝw2al/LҼ~7#zy\0H'>;e>fmVwɬ&aNs{ޓnF"8D:L0# oxCyQ9Iz9gzq 3ys@74I3=}\")JPٙ;om7gz3=L/dD'zsH0P"DF Eܔ:,l3]MP;;<#DŽgz pgJyC:c)?3(XI[Op1ЙimLfzcs-yJ?DO% Rpw8.`ŵW]~~fA)d93W&*&%PÐ'p۽okW}ki>À &̹^v9ǔHSWf 0PזdV-1:/nm(fD H0cW$HD`$c'W"$@%;A"$XH2V83D Hd,D HƊ@2™%@"$c>$@"0V,HD KD H"epff@"$X$@"d,c33KD Hƒ} HD`$c+Y"$;H.\~Ȟvr_2D޿^u4x#}|Ա}d>m]n]پ]l~*|$ʯD`Gξ>e>>2cQjMv}J4=v`-ܲ|7BIm}YMDrE3cըI Џ\SD`Ⱦ>eX&:A`/ڊ#+G_), SN9 ),D`q Hacs=;}D-̇׎;XnlPz%!{%t0z2y~9!0hW'El YDĴe\?7h=yLAMSݲ,@AqW3[w=YL+pim,׸XhL[wqMŵ_fmV9,G?g__eqAlҸ #_ZK8st\W,J2yy*Ⱦ>͒ b,  $ d, D~<=3_"Gf,ĿLL/7K,&"9# Ʋ˲'@"LEMHk"$rF rn,{"$S@2)l,R"$d,˹@"L!XQH@",g,˲'@"0$cF"%@"HƲ[/˞$"e %$rF rn,{"$S@wo|SXUꢋ.Z^_anus]a5[YչUZ]z׫ﯬ\,Nd,%m _WOoʔcG`ׯsd;PY=::ntw_i N^KD d,CC7$@"C K?tZ"ЁpVmt+]b.rT7 I:Uil9޶R?\SV;n&c/UjIPe<uʋ_0vG ox'?IT׺ֵ:2U}u '\Zկ~~p]pKS}lG>1SO-+?}{N\f׿~?~Pa7M}kՆnXz8YKk)>wC__{޶}ݫ׽u9'8Poے΀< |ͫg_<1;l6sDv2{H~+ 7y]2',^\rIo}8|sw> 78)lhf^+dlZAfzA7 ;L"9y6ӆٜGe#&poFՖ[n9{jLef5d e3/|?_@Be# oڵ~R~%O70ɐf ]lG+RrWGyd[>n'.sg6׸5G>\_ׂ%-K_Ҝ|vqǢQ|O:zݭI_.f'-Z?bn0F]mZ(Sc[/ 1miNL5]mm)嗷kF;+iDko"0$^d&[5_xS_2\-{2ml6 o~S9xGA7|_ η= °l +B}{KcNd,B2Yu|bH^j(ֱ7޵6r?F1x4 vj> EqDkk'Daf܏קpJ?ԃ [?\ۮ3F#=H؞ծv_Ws-߸fHA٢[ob[ a@?[>q2Q$ 3ỲD?, "DL/{RfWޟg*_0fZH+Ţs yq{wz,`<_-&W[Pi>LND ">sf,Ѧsmֺ["vv_۹qS26\"PC@aP9y~~~)Kvڨ>5H$Uei>G~ yD>LD${ޥmt΀yLffH՟VzڸgM"hALvhb ,x> 1'EzX)yi<(pj7 ӆ3ϑ3o4tǽ0 1HЀsS9pi#& 09_=`vZU17?^>SjR>VMr` ֦SL+fH}QD,da& 9}k2e\OiK'tRۥ<7:;9$!nͤcDo~)2\GKfoP1H5_C MCP$ AODZ0?wsqwv"xьP87i^?Y_ozԅo `V'ҿ~mim֯; i~8 N[=9:$'Hƍ< I ma~`*z:Sq_0miGDSuS[`|%md*LŹ~mzm/fj4QD`  AS8("G@&5JEEhjÿ[sKXh 'qL89EHۖ&-auOԵ'fHmJ&%=Fт E, :ΊiZNuŤ.\7f :`2~u-7ڏXq.iv) gDVB-7&;+1hî<<;Iω$ii"lhPq]67,k5hC0{jR42VǷ+z:γ4AG=>^tb"qV@Zz/["&.fQ9j;W.,򨣎*R@>K m:i-: D&p‡.2<.}&ۯh*ʊr$`G_Ooֆ}3YK{G}o"}k/~B,ho~Kٵ[ieMƭM];OE azv0J]BwMpv"8t kMۮ0y/'>iA?b"|p*T^= ńC#f-_t Z6K'=iB(&f!vsv%4;6nIӦ歝uY%`@ =6j}ks8c_R_oeX&LaVDM(}H}Vitm NOL֯DZ T!I.6c4$xv .vTXg/<62owƲXQ#V MMt75B%qG淒*m5hӆZf1k߸-z: f9o/q__t˸+%@"LX=4@",{,& $@"0]$cҬ 8E,DIEBZ . !~"zaHrd,˽Sh ˪/$*V<]k Y@ذ5P}qTy$cY*+sH4A&Ų({xY7 '|rY1҆A0/i{sX`颋.*ױ{=<*z+V[=_oYɪ ulYìz *z/[%-?{OdW9_*' W>H&m7۸^aScL?-a0 Ӆ,9昲fe4/RU $kԗU7[:֖83 s׀_g*``}o >>1@_'iY~ c 5-߶l5wn\V Cy24>pLE9}ofŶ-3XX'NqGmt~Lw}(05R׷:&Ѯ>NG{uɴJ}߶6((=R' ؋HCYD8נ3I4 ps6'>"b0Čmi `4$XEE6&CRtŠ9*tRjǀK;mbqRV3(yu 20n0s5p=q Lpuʀy2;64 ,LVs L%_Z޲: 1,uҪ@DA= Vi#f " Vk֬)[3Y55^ZYs)}18OZFmK cj˨Cnb1߳K&LteMb &мVFsO޳ 0BJ@N2At.ӆj)y/+!5R"~H4 /zP=qs$QL_!H[{H&%[)y]'Z m[Jk%# ߶gGݢ84qoF3fmpĽdJ֟׶~WhZB55o۶%CWG]=jh3!AUo.D\ansjC;˃TĄ ^^6| ZCc='(SG3;#g^1ؗpF~# RIHS3H|9M2ڠM&HZK)1y{al∖FGeH8XHePԣ,g9۶W{81k6P^r=ӓrhjEN?blbl'aj$~8ԝFJ Wϯ@?Z>_y)vr_[T7>3tL2 P>}G/<זZ[Ǟ0.e\6L@.0ҺSN*' y%O>=̋ǵf嘕&2c|6Ad@*ReOZU3mW⼁~,ͺĽQXM"}WcX!-cQ>A`sToۨOL7c.,֯uq= AH;ۏ%u8h /xY8T i24%A}i{^c@Z*pNmyڈ_'5ωr4xEߐ滮w1 mQM]DPW|mIQLpҪEn$mWwu>K2y>rL0 BYˀDcw% jLO-ܷߠ> l"ʄgwRL*m>I<-NSպ'vyn~ةIKp}>ҕ&܅9)ºAKq;X~yw^HD Xu01uQ)5&lIa>'-S >R:3/}K7a]u4vԧ>U`T O~ra4dG jj0q}R.XP5k֔k^ywm >qGҗzk_[O 0v9J~g\>Wwecv*wr4Iԧ>bO `O2!LZA$;l/*WJa0sN_= өy{KPo?/7Ai-&]ר FguVuiU{wx\wwewq)_BD`O=ϼ̳].'~WrHxFp)T֭+>(?"]i[o٬tc,Fd:Q'E~15! '"LU>~al-oyrINwSa:yܦ\I$n]Zc=v6_av}{~&̲Nnw|g?~ﱺ6I}7]hMvi"2f|Ex}=TmO?Ce OPE #LO/?=OS0HH^02wA׽nPsoJtm" )OyJA).R1p$R=3, BGT8IXϼmo[1sǣ#2:vug[1|3C#ߟx"QakזϜo~suի^uvKllA+ s?QNso-yuI:t o(>Ex[x\53{'J.#,vz' xE%r`~$f"Zht"0iWT3HWUץAeZ_;N7;찢Q2/x@77>';6;R<9ՆnX̗/yK5=Mͬ4"ˏ~'5pxXm"69蠃ګHe@a0ַUߝaۈ 裏ϾgCuBrE/mznCK_{#Ȣqs1^"PO]WXG2}u'w}nhr':4,ST"Mxn/e*v~Uclͬ&~_畎Ĭ̞E?W JAx`a-Z 2,1+'sIHя~o/ O|3 4g=Ya0Dw9.#c݋Em\|ܧ.CE&ۥ ͹1b@w!F,# fԤ+_ʕVx00[?/ s~GOgLs2o) q%MxΒ1OF&A`3?.^:7Azl`^ p^[NMƈ!-dɚ$d5z`̘nNa GGŢ_.LiED4]lv) z_Ka.GdgE6`Rf8E(ۥ@{i CE~Ϭ_~m$aF xw R&o0ro^m;-Td<2/joH;DLa&&mAAeQ}7HcлYŤ~ֹ㳫 7qq;i1 8טȴ oӬHsu ȯ~Lk#}NѲޝz#3?Mƌ@i L{e(.rANZRhfe7BcpO0 EuӞmeL|%3/;PLa^jD7UBS xm] 1HN ͒7ߍ{?GޣbJ -e{^D2N6i'H@́`\+"}`Q8:i kLff=T?ӾI6$|5M)ʢmD*֥Si.bRh'y f )g¸vywd9w]iSXGٓEnjز\IA9JӒD< OM*bNŒlg^b2p / F4i̦ ȷL6f=1 *BK|}B0p-R|LPnΌuҐ*]'rȊi.j'mhK5HO{(_߻f`adF> ME_Nz~xWM%% }׳k-oS!KMl$ 3_~LE_J`b y\q@ySt,WS!ۼ  " bs E|'"0 T'4Lb_UKu袋Jԗpae7U i^Pt~ ]+(U42>8=GjKaR lb> .mCȶ:~#)m̘~Xo3HsHS9JjٯAP VÒ~ pfz$7W6> vcnӯwه$«Mca]QDNAz &|X>G M<\sހ7Ӗ)T]jKZE%W/(/ b6AF%]Fp \ͼf_=O[aӁ$͚Z~mcuC$B|j8J1'>BP&v@͇bv"XP(Ǵ3p?Zţ:jvɛat*KlHI QP|F$^KṴnYhޘpd:lOet!3j#>tR$Nm-rhhƢ;~-Idr& cN<-Td_D5cѸY9mfHLL@66{a8˘hϞylҸ96-?/nMBgʱv'*Kj101w4s2?##@݇-|@ e:ڡ_)LO531Әv\ AQ)<<0L#I=03Ipf/@H sPD7Dfs`P5mx>YO}aӤb*9blR9o `4dLG;+_Pd>QtXmC3"0D#9ii'{j0ڂA:LJи1D HG1`HqvcA4i)EMc2)-+Unh|uGzFV#ilkfCL?Ck,m͂y@MfT?s[f@E*oP'ҌD3ظ/Yq+_ۜ"$K}05ͥ0v=~ Rĸ IDATzOX_OTŧ!UXMozk^z”) G8b)z_g9|GC 3;;h0ҤD H"pH?$"TqҜod.e52̥Q0Ež'|&k~f*̊idOZ? LĤ:2Y,aKmڊϐ1 ¸S?,frbR_K p4".GK@R!?rٵd~i#c1I J\L'C 9Dg+0Q3o`籌RźҪ[.5铋5e.ŘRJ8?7g͚5VQy,#i,21 Qj,_f`*pn+GҨL%SOǟDXvq{5V\]FkR)a,@C3~XYmiTaz)Q.Qvv RspcˇLYc6ivML?qMKXoLTj7zFwiB1c6=>RM":V|Z:=;kav |b ̢=5v=_W˄l 9Z<5k1iYx5B׭a:t|qO}SKT AMcՎyDn SP4;GW&XDtm-_#KxRY4VώZpLdUŢd,"= dWK{qwNfW=KЈ{+_YU-oc{ [±y;td&ږD0"{:E셩TyV]XUү.0.V# E!:g5H"clI(TxS! _|tA6H4"Z-UmD=jȷٌEѷMV<a%rV-d'=IeJյ><ߴSL}H zVV+pLٴNV5$#T;&|Hs^8^{aoomebg-Ymu5QvH?BE`Hfb_lne {R=-5 M"P-1DӴ`SfdB(z/~q:;G貥@+`(Sq~m)k**c:H\?Y2-!S~U텘oy/VL@ ]{G ب(Ҭ_EW0C`AC|g.E{w׬YSpHrȜk9E7>-{Gs Z;M,jWvmx9HFqnҿZc!u0$E䅱){qW!SCʍ߈ꓶg !Ad@lkw]og.ףMFįŵ]wݵh1R|O :D7e.I?[1reEà1w'R~wz>:*%QliVAOܽsfS[]gg Hy&{qᘤb ~U}Vtf] r]{7ӮyQ{ k^qKU+V@_$F/ /F~~g›9SZ|l8w.27M4UED`Nя~a,-~fktRJ& yi J^fܶ7 {iiro>m{ϵ,jZm~gb!v~=6Me.m_lҥ.%Pf!Zs1@B A9f1t-hO]~N8aV j` y+wӱ1RR3–1y|T1c%ch/8?BIooMy40MRvm-=yDJv`xbHkMpUB4(rOB׿BW V#$|‹MV Bʡi{ܤ6#yXi!"|ٲ1oZuԦrAfڅ0$Q6؄PmGˡ]u P &t[7u4u{ XWbRQ¦**4lGH+[ Qzd?$=(cpڃ;t \!'Aŝ&Qs A&R40ъQ0h]4wxy]XSe x{&?'m$$p?2ǐ(ږeI9-V$jF`La$ jD; Gc&0 Ǥ-)lRX .)l%u3$LaQh~XQa* T>$jB`*jjk"$+ d,+E>@",1X@"4$@"$cY'@"HƲZ4$#e $JC JkѬO"$K@2%n||"$+ d,+E>@",1X@"4:ͷo`%W˲)M^/ruLGžI G~16IZzꋕ.}im҆t:͟diD H 4˥&YD H@ T4C"H@2ӖYD Hd,S YD HVOڸāIENDB`Ddl@   A ?øTerry presents opportunities to search the occupants and interiors of cars MOJJ1us Order driver from Wilson Order passenger from car Johnson Frisk passenger m car Long Search car's passenger compartment Picture 3Terry presents opportunities to search the occupants and interiors of cars MOJJ1us Order driver from Wilson Order passenger from car Johnson Frisk passenger m car Long Search car's passenger compartment "b}pUP+8L'm}Gn}}c/]E8,F6%PNG  IHDRhS!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss\7sfV23LIVv2[ bbbb3FNP@@@@@qХ!   ъ)j   ]@@@Z8V@@@qХ    ъ)j   ]@@@Z8V@@@qХ    ъ)j   ]@@@Z8V@@@qХ  ?<裍_gHSC?pM7_}o~3.<o 6[X|oZh??l6e/{Yx3;Qqm&No}k+K<|oӻKi 709~򓟄Z+|X3r(}kQ^я~r{v[ ,wW#dTU6oT>wqG򛐌fj ')?cwyl0&nfz?ƁK. ?[lr8Gx{ZN6*ۋ_1H"\p ݰR K3svΒeoc3F?~7a5z>an} ,pUW/}K'Ռ*یG)߉,Mv y{?1l#`[ihyxLJu&<9#<2򗿌k[mU9^{]vP"s=7c zhXo'| oq'?V_}1׾x |[ /yKµ^s8Bkm;/oD,L?.71^yeP^w;lB{ӛ^Wk&۳fua=>WkIte&l>E>6#y }J+N9v\rXj"F¦u6d5yMO'6j&LfñCH]=(iSȠQb#yƒ>uO}wvEk֛i*{d5{ꟾ}ڤ>N?8#i@Znx&6K3dY:z~{U'Nկ~WuV9^ӻ szi\1{k`uW>^ՈzE㎽v!r$uY,}sq=jUN%Zm`X7f?jCW>*ԫUyg>3W9OAG^/}K{3Cr_ QSO=5>?qtr*jym|3曯6toUc_W1?FUGʉgufQΦm馽WU}}O;X . G?ZOs9j3?LC:ƥK{SLu{~gskM^~_GijW-7F?GuTj?ydW [n<{gqFʹ>Ǣ֣.mx[[z>k&m֛3xUż^w\P9]Nñ#[{$ޫFf}ӨgWGH#f51 ke7wW8tft:/?rȇL'`P}x8z!CHuv rG YzVnT,6:ujz+gQR{{z[F'>xBU(ctʦmce]큃&TsV@@=v(-g8WYe\s޶6G/WzφA2zQYgmqg>gUͼqrլ^=G4nt93cToT/qTƎg>5^k*:^x՟P"ddVs1Gfq}Ǵ[,nHƇTj=ӈ??W]X`l<<O}VthAofmF`u5OB'^vmwJd ̚ kRW3ryg9EW]`W tu2af.>L/%+WqD>OU505~dT(zL =No9_ dSKtmc:u|:*bzMD y~ML~kHIOlə2N4{_~yi y ]wݵiWAM: O,zg8c}/nh)ZU>G2FGW)U9\&> r|Lc~7z5$AI>~ Ht@-Η?Ƣcst"d7ظāyJG٩M=5HbSLjNro _Hm~f'2J &f>Yh4p,՚a|%qvѵxAfWWx,^?ŀ`_V딡Z WmLfRF^dĈƖ#{,O~%h_tPmj__PTwq?XjSmSB ,[LԾD-oN'fݼ+js侭LBXl@/3ԙA41F>T.q*w+Cu1qRb6cd6_Sدij~XT #S4U|Q- 61R}`jT}lFc]pW/~YRrۭPWu_u;ەS5^吣j(nVU/ݫMj 'nPbs 'pN:Iɽ=  656T,}\nBM}VU3&&ʗP&.j)wG6.ՠ bQXEN]_I1jq+ѻ3rmqwmHEt ̦Wmf;.|5#s!p*Rtuq+0U3?M`f4ӑA7ggmv:9D`_d"m٠}ZGx|}26E> j&Z &06k >iFy6Fʌ놼j$OV)lF5Ftf6tKڙԥ÷cE^bm\ccjo圑_GUN_zL_%/(f9ygelPU­ wZXRO߃2Zs`6ELdRbX,q ŌEH@@-0)>~bbbѷ@qУ_GEbbYAϢ_],P,0(zhא_U?`kskq$9x9WWo⠇oI/v9Y6 ]s]6tgd89dc'O]0MSsΰ$F ЂZۜBT!y,PqtY&K4[St*3 jɿO;]67GTw. ^An@\8Kf7|`/D?6t(H˺/tWW/F{tljjS@'k0\fVrXXÒJhoN_kIMerr? g9bQwVg?O'q^ Y9O B)OIbAʈ<>M]ŨMjFF}`]l=\\ݎMm5W-GN%) 4Ǎ>UrV3xpe{Gom+3.8]ȊnAw)_1.=\x %/t ^W6{1*s΁wq<'sm5W-:lr]͛E]t2S)eJYnn.Prz.{*74묳Ne-.uBd]M_q)ƍ/\[uBXQyf9PEanЯJ Bre+ʲ} oascJu_&k^N#*Wwru9r(-P֠mLLu^fz% Gl@Gxw 8}7:h UWrVx,8U3(2W1-"q}Vw%W\klRG]x<|޹:H]v)ק9aӔM"Leæ`7((@ISvWuԲIXw'_.HE9'Am/T8z'k+.o}>.bctmʣZU:U =>GmVrXN1Ġ&uf6XL]TY9z YK]fc|+(K!\̚pւـ㵟 4]eo. l@I>gr <ȌS8|0F~&Dʍ VFcslm-#o'lj\]m <|znj]rrH@qdc\:(  @Ynm FEbb@qe ˅,qT?Gyd{M&0s׼5aE }s?9Ah<x Kj' \v3HQ? xFz1#;RefM =k{)u@$@qГ5뽔XX`X8IPIEbbu=s{)]@$@qГ3뷔XX`X,qLJ**  ̚mْ/3YJd@@o⠟:(  (Kx(/(|(3WgEbbYAg>3</x f򒎯xzֳb-Zj *Xn2kYh/}K[l?pQG%} s=w.*u]7zchgW_=lvo[V[Ngyf<ٍ78j;s~0\s7<pgz8ssNƉ~΄qWDL_rH7T|E_?z;\pAtФ ;wqsnvs{ s9g4zm_qRA;-ır˅j:Ma2:ujM43fB@ky_ř&N[B=qy6`h7hYZibHfN=/;dM)hshxű#(ϬYP? ~茺%1>#*4_w1bFi(~462Sx#KcQp*(Y묳Nt83dl ؓ'&0kd b&.Sm&xԙI &|!пRaB4L3*kq$D3eC,]gCWW0:y1"־qf_E c2` E91Y  zc9o3nj39D`?|>o5؎xQ TH熇a& Y޲4-!+׮rMFiu+MLT,&3fr,a-qi8LX~@ (cQg¡NCHA㎾,h=ܘyS4 X.mzR@ tA@#flH tMf# d|v#6M:bVNrAFژfS82ʮ2=2ȱ*_U.haT5} :>'K{ͭOajԩqx!D@dCA3ə 6H`J+=xpt^ x M T& ]T ih hfk29h>S '!I<ىGyfp )Og덂M 6hǮYB@;}ݣJ]4ϕ^oGH_&U.ba/NxngyRtfTc?WVkTq/P`xMd=YV|%@æiĴ>1Uga&+֤gBe |A@"p@^ l@ "(3~m̳ #hl1ùk #ُsÙh-2Q;aW/˾ZǦ2v|V`"#8ҡ,ЮhD*d1 \,/Lwa#Og<8[D0zfu@Θ8l&a6 |Ťatɘjh=2?k*D5]E/e m3Ytk#v|*lm WzK\@!\~SNTVkGcy:+βnԖg@> x+@yk3 UT6Fi ?e,fh8MQF=^ɱ){/oϗ!9_:AI(1y+*&G>̾I-x5aa)˄V[5ϿsahVouSJspԕM:=㰬S܁ozCyN{:x--u![G;h0SreĎ)Ng-x}z^)Y$%qIeTir04·?0eE³=6lϽK8{o_daoN3jIIN<':fu{RˀGXo2fлK\Apن9QF\tkN;+=EU-S}l;74,zxpdvثFA3Q5BѫXXX`Y8VcEbbYA2U] Z,P,0,Pdo@,cg.-(l(zXѷXX`@qгLU  L6 =j[,P,0Y'AtU] T,P,0X8虥&K9& zV]QXX`V@~Y@vI+X@6-hgbvvU*N^Ǿk"p 9H>,'4E?ΞQ oo+st_N>-\mek+nma0}~]'Z?/)Kyn))> uqr;T{Wc )o9X6EksAs^~W&~Ҥ7A[<~X\t6<$?wK/A蕇ҽ|,Y9\䶕'z=^4Kdһ'ҽ|ܟAHin-n)\`N}JfStLҤC&~ϣr$_irM0EK)^=!orM0EKk_Jn*N̕_y>%)NeLҤC&~ϣr$_irM0EK)^=!s1Y2X,mxEóp`*=F6k_W9{UGuU=]i3n SaV U@A<ݿd-G}4|Q/?0Jn_AA/L=(Bh8/|!za饗ww>χ%\Rdz~gG? ?P聩 >J+=7# zO [lE}ß𲗽,= B=0p4z׻2,Hk{}:M&˓mW]uUkUVY%&?3 ;cG>bY"~džw݁s: s5W~תcL{</(ZA[HY3sN8∰"Xpxt"ry_wumo{[xы^ۼd.N=/7a 7ughC*]4ui6>,E \ bq{; _(q]w ?fmN>袋gۇ'chx>wNhǩqWUw={1+ zy+bXgu½ޛSU儈O+^Ч{o~sxի^g)_"lMYab{>ۧ .~Agthl iu8}s rJ$̀vFZax] /|X=ӗe-.9J$⢫&&?wuWɘx$c;>$8 eK=sˇ?@%c]v1R+.%Ci qu: 6ɛ(T6NuɟA}>dp~?_:[~:d(yVOJZ\]a:9⢷qW:VZKϛh'YzF*Waq{hi,kJҁ~ w}$]|ueT/0Ghp xzǽ1ҫXޘ8?+CxV3h:2As W͌W#2xU2x=go_2pY ·E֭p \x?q\Xve0sF4?Obm 'I~Dr ê)O_x裏K 陹7|V[-54Y}>NG0KQ`鄵+"lvo}kk 3UW]5T"%B-xҋCOG0(-!_"]~uYGPf]6[mb{lg^3{yȶ)zxS7^~yOXd%3xy-.R`xK^%3LOҿ1`B?Q=[o[lq'tRA' ½Nd/DM74K/4\veIQ?}:~?сA;D___)HMic8 HEWm4zU YFP*y6#S ̼eַaCG^x>?+#8KO-.:(@OE8`G+Gy;bCXJѮJćG'׿1a$/~qMP@[zg쓓$u?,)cN8!vdk?[ff66=u{]Y6Z~[0Nuhbt׾au׍e7sa;:WȳmʠE!3ƮO3Sӛԯkf*'NP̜Ro ,@YMGm\݁3H0g`f ҭV~NV ZL9E xm*r*΅Cev$ uY ArSYaMLA/\ )8 dŎJk^i4:SyM>mZ^ycȎt$xYĉhq6OvoeX$glj(2Uf<8č78 PN=~^6O+ .^Bcy$BK#Z?2^{7q06sfk#f⼽ڤ|UW!R6H&8h|9x3dӖ7ocʋEv2 H@Y\]`A[&+▦-gu~+[oZ:FORWO^Qls=`l//wu%/g6 SL);X)3o"*;fl*ұH^YvS}Mc)7T3bf~ #kfrqǍIe%;! uMkT@"1X6ᭂO2gT;hB Z\( \hχ~x܀iKXX$A`M@HC茀ll3 cH~eelŕ •䑾Y.΀u=ÚQp% k,ii](vlf,3'=>i%;ز̪6k-o+6:3g lJ]"tp[*/\gz/l-C.^%)$?pS4$3nfV7Tȑ,N?BK2l3GOCdHH?|wRTPMP@,_0 }򓟌A8gF\ #%vD%kP47?+)f瞱!GA3Dd']FY/eahu痫/ @^,8Tubc7o?68^Xc8kSؐ5MQCk;4lZ Hڲ%f:M/l/?z`jd8ɲL+=|fȴڔm3؇L1K@7ꓬc77vg󎁍<8\"}gʙt+{?쁏AW=vZta-y=ԩW:ujf'\Ax]:eR&8?D:cG@q..pzSyҼ̞WZI۠N3}{4lt5B_H|vyΕ͈EgO!Юzs)DiļumY7oß*? T<>ϴoڰVꋴz'rYo؇}ͮD^Oim $WyA#Aӧk^7^~Ԟ9>}ʟs޾?x}~s^7^~fsg @4] 齁|/Gӥ`N~*?ӑLj L?e}:A's n"s򤷠w{'ɃO4 rJ'}⯃t9y^@B.=9z3AoD'Q zKMnӄ F>+xK&D'cyҋWP:!6hE'hӄ4ႢZW tKAl!Mt>+x{46Mhcy[^)8f%ȟU@t)z.ZI#lť4hdzqZ4B?4#G2-I ..h[,.^4#G2-I#h'Sk 6ȑ pcqZ|BouF =r$X4jgVgR Y]>K>{'ؕ#:O|]>K>{'ؕ#:O|]>K>{'?fYW➮X\6JAc:>Kca{96Y\9hy,^gi,>,z/aq8+=-,ŇE<,.:gqxEg,<4}̠4_6tdSHUXlPx7xO{/]=}W)zsӳtxT~6O\*quDb{=~=ā&jf*>1i›R < s8>r.?gn lAA[=rD8R O5ѧsyXLM*&&؆gytPh_(]+E+:8NҹmYdA5Qo㠕!J K̇u`rp`;IPsGP,鬲+fȮCM%5A0~1$@&>}8'r!9-n58T \Ae;ŕ')ȡ[uvljcCoʏq)ew !,RF LĘ4ٝCdw|NA.y7!{!G12詣wuBu84v6,QP i۰ǎfZ$BNLĬ^fl+̂8e ̖9݊0؜NCyp(A Z,୷*@drz;|:9z** e`^EIg7!c/ш, 'yɾ@lC3&0@XN2kP23f ?A&l#x Ժv/섽 a&n JLIθCzZWV?5Bb ,#o' 8 ‘3} oԍBZ6xK,Yݱ'm#evsvgcA`ڈ6-]v h8e],ˠv@uJ#i0iPtLM2p8:f^t-aO[<+]?褀'@/ uӁ,tы_SS>2gف5S:-G$p$$̬){a_..[\z)a‘t>̀xc!X?rȇ \c'}D$

& h6 ilxc{( ?6d/9 i|.3 t|EtGB:o lYLjcw=Fl; 6-Saj]/d0ÿ0H?㝠%t3o@À4D5rqu{zvՁ1vX1Uypv,#1C'4Vǰ?gɦ K {q604^/ߕQT?_>Mj.S_|`B=o  bGC=nC![2!`]%kYq♁SW8QTtbzTJkk/;8YҦ !+Kg ,وx^D l;kބACd?_L0\0x" A4\ I J <dzxHъ^>G>6?p^4VAqⷳuNgT/KNLA'`>^T} ,Ot>VyKBql\x/hyD,flPm'q HŃMN:lFy g)BhIW~tl (N  = ewM:Hg[ t6(cs;|m~Q׆^jq'jaI2ѳJkKoy˯ v ]+m8pz|+=t"ݠW|PdϓXb$|@^x̊YK ,7ط~ʓ?]WBn h\yp-EsAoC^;_ Lz Zz8E $t,AbwcZt'']fdlM`;zm0AX`W/͂&(1bǘil>Ao]#͌/2:Qw,xjE{x+C':16=堛k}yߧ}p#r^}xʯ7i|U_w7^~}zW}=DzWA R /^X?7t|6 8}®3ߦOѶ2,.^g颫VŇE/9ؕ_} 6OYmꠕiaQJ:h(iaKNT1Zb AץG'Iql`To+S.A[ˇ8~pAR:Ø u2[.?/:t,6_㑦`yg7٦MI/m8KW_9GDy+C/ty1d^!'r8˫8ɰPyYu^V^ʋS>_)^z8/˦A#]~/|~)Mqȕ pI%KM ⯣'޺s/hۨR+(m%Ko+K:Sm!r%[?R_Ӽ]J' 9ũWs!tzDyAiuZ?+~Hc|p0~V og}H{q'qK"؅o1mrV?0nJC_?i.? Ϋq|7M_VACw΃*؟:uj<{quRrŏH| QunlD>Gq 7q y!CJOA髼Bs4p:2?rg%M/|Mapo)Wgp`g~ ؘ{87p0g[r:;|rc`LdG)-`ILd1A_cYbh!^Zt+1p@c⧚~tp#>Z g9 ڦ#{7<^`r{D Y,8wq؉ v)~aW t8&Nù W{[:_&qq,pFK~] mCyTx8SNy _`1%O<1ǥo|ma8_qNG/?N]d?ϟO "+lAFLzpB’'3W"m#v[&͏Eq]8%_$"=n>B>m>&Ą3fؒcBnjaӥsR Ե 3 ;y{ ,c13h1u+5+g̍'T&Ưpz1233r1uT*fSCRWAiʟxN'Z,hq+3+(O9?  g:81 1S[q % 8yf T8x~U=PY۔_z (:8gx8?:+#J8mNL9+p-h`sp8@-'2Pk"ۢutv VPA5d؀֚Iݮm(4 5YKix&GcӍ vW|V _qX~dz}Od¦ H| <=/băSSP z뚮wWcq:8G! 6zϦK'ץC%x{y^V ,Եc00ɱ˾ yl[#/auN_JҖ(\+7k/NOgv]y7 @a+NPiħT)@KaxU4+H6M Ft7&zAjܧ+_AγM.[4:6^lҡO\,&\z[~/XgO z<+eӄ KfK\۶֦[leh˩.z I-/Nx]:4 5hGb.][G?t#^> z~O%W0G?t-U? z~ggi,.RgAӑa#i,=VMLgaKPih,=4!:GMħCc,NƁ?Kܿ|OEޘL#pe J=i#SOdžT:q ><7J\<•s> JWJ0 9yTY=*?"#Gӕ`*8)}D ɳ*O'Z!.Y ,ыFiey-TA,p#9z.S)L#Z`Nc-tzr@y)Mp#)^z8AdHx%GS'liUR֤e=l+8^z/I=[ZMi -==ۤ<եc%Tb8ex[:Y|XZʱ:Y|roeZ\O7:Y|XzYʱ:Y|roeZ\O7:Y|XzY1 lťЉF<*M|æt5]vyr\WzN^t[!9 6QŶyK\]U_X8fC V!g SG>Gqa/_yY^ZJO٦yHoOz哷ȑ.XP}:6MXOwKKMiGjXP<4beZH.&}lo voJ'O-;tI>` vϥIW|W' W\JҀOKOIWoҕ(]D.U^>ޥܢ*=;h,S Oy~ic֠}%haKJ cy,.~g2,ʰx[9qo.:A+J cy,.~g2,ʰx[9qo.:A+J cy,.~gK13h rЈ8r(_A?'/+/AG ˥{WЧw-|sҽ|+}y>A|#WƁ :ytJy|~>Ϝ\|}>qd`qA ѵ R7ɷikB+AqɚL姬]ldRKMAs~h<%mp& g:6< j[W^FIm[4; s4{n*],PlZO-9v*ԣdmJMz-    vrD3IENDB`bDd    A ?úMayor Commissioner Sergeant Street Cop Attorney General Prosecutor Magistrate Prison Picture 6Mayor Commissioner Sergeant Street Cop Attorney General Prosecutor Magistrate Prison "b_ 1T~rqX_0Dn_o~vCQҚ{ |PNG  IHDRy??l!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss 1b9n\B@L^}@!csܸz5! B qjB@1y! @qՄbB@# &ի ! 9F@L>ǍWB@ɫ! r|W&WB@17^M! &> 1b9n\B@L^}@!csܸz5! B qjB@1y! @qՄbB@# &ի ! 9F@L>ǍWB@ɫ! r|W&WB@17^M! &> 1b9n\B@L^}@!csܸz5! @?o|/՝>}z|/OiNA}?ד6 Vywe]ڴi>C7sPmngwgu;ꨣ<3}JݦnZJT>=#nʠ矻Yfηf נnèx K/?nk0)SVXa{ӘO:w_2UD{UAvɋJ#p9XmV {EgA>k۶ .qyd뮻T8SEަk/w-Ν;[.~sϵ)筷Zje\3f1ǭnEuG^Gvk=3a;_޵oLўz)7h _W_M:TG}:zMUWH3 0n8?v|[s5{^7m4wu~:m iK>^xkOr ^ }IK,@bY=G;?sunpoƽLӲeK_/4P#.#[P'p1CEQ'fE#Gw]zM6B -d3_t1}?fF`L i~fOqu`j_o}p^gul={P\y啎ޥKHѣI!J+d~yG_3<^{5k{lPX|S1䣦cC}vo1/#,@"Yp n뭷v[gc 0}`\ruٽ0W^+;R#k) 0䤄lٮ]ڬ:>:vv:>0ݤI)a28C9C=de!6WڵkFaSNY3-"v?$-$BXtxE,k.X-a& `ҁ ""8iV믿*3TC\10s@ k ғ3HK@LʚW\ᘥV.uf Hꀄ`I#H}p@B^!M`50F̨E1 CwnUKN;d&\"XVRyc9ƦAgMs` γF@ Ĵv͎ %|4HHH|\0QDaHtxHätu = c M >}͐QɃ?+j$z2H#5Ǹ: -̟:}:":#C^~q!8F3$b?33IԆIw43Q` )98O GdJ?|pӏҁ#<u, !uqäCHAj񵐦ߙ#a"LeG=@!$aV`2.ǨG`Hɿ0GPý,̟z@w`!dr=x^,u-F0nɤ$z$J5xf Y`LB7^/P}wm 7C7&>[2ܗ>[q~衇_Q^AU (TŰ!1JZ0mGCo/;0rb>ǃ 90cs9)$$H !>p 0<*!èQs#R4Q]-*K֠RJ ʊju% =_Xoc}8O B^(SM@)b="E@o\C*GzA}+Kre:; J ##:#k`,0nݺBX0*?!,9i0 70:v1鑁4y$G fꅩ2F-HGB# <\/|X@[?wXEJDPYϩQ"zp(8R̻AmAV4Q ,8C~♼XGC|!~ggYMkq,zj| y-5"TZ #gh)1#P!SSJJ  "7@ o75E\L_C@a ?ʇ̚<`8Ɔ,a?(>`&Jf~ gC3H7x#Gmb)r|X_a~4hmEd!Y}6DC3`=Fԣ485w U2叴:/'nvF~c`"桽(p&b]anL` 0bm2)V6}l1YŞ ik(w_8ލrˁ[4l0BB`UAr.<=&y-ffK U%v♦=esFVFRlXo oD6 buD&;onYzR=YlEUU'_`;2e-7Ϗ3; bsGצk'dl XoAU#v>Ѳ2ȖW+ 銝a]M@54!,"yf 6neV_*N]SUEEuv'>+y_1y! R;z[IIҿɗ~M]B \xf ! uMB@4|(, B#`JOC! \L pXwUWߩ# &x @gpAWgp-*/RהO&@-KI\#.7<=*@:HRp $: c -WU JG#@ˢ^Lp~w I2*W! <G6FNX@dW+f# &_yUhvGbX%&.DAYD.6:kg" SN5?xθ$ >hDM$[ \#0IW^yE J-/&_%U>(~M6b.bq5^% L#0tP <{1'$PM@&`lfB[l(;$14!믿n &OWwuq~k߾} uMzB5Fw;wvIGzJ >-'I>ō 4 0}twGo1|g{8MD@L>Z T ;zf„ q}:udVX!NAz&m "p뭷^%9&4*\L^pf!~7wQGnݺ^xr]wǢ uMvJ5G`ʔ)n=t/b\/oUW]5NAv$RM@ExܚkY._Q+|EUB Ot;Ｓo?ܐ!CKQvȼ_~8'~H>ƍ߸RKs_wu4dKDs94#裏$y嗝|ejg1fI B"_:mVnڴiB-9/B|v5mF*Z@Hꫯ~~"#Gt ?d^){8?ͤ7Gg1LofO 5\0 KOk7SMRO*~?Sܘ1c\6m]=_A2 HHW_+{7N\x7f8ME 7L^zvRYJL~ޮ]8MF |7Nm5|I1Ù'r#gTy!P&~'w衇[n%qpm44O[Ms[oe'NꫯnŖ]v8M :ko{~!Foy@&pC?4LQ54 =' RM2=zg}։Wi^LرczgH}ulc]}U*_<ӎ`ovЃB/hv7tLFTfU]6{Ƕ@"q ŊUV .A ^yA!0zW^^yw:ty#PRqvi ף_~  a۶m]1/݊*> xZ5Ə/_ %%\U_* r-N>d>pa}1 c0ѣG]w泺}oaLHHT&9r!Vv(~8JwYmLwvxpy;\޽m ?Cw '^{Vl.!,Z?ܞ|-!>@3Q>)uEwz2K6:A8]X;uJ5/Ӌ^ޣ]q#(-wh׏zgvme_D[=5jT4uȻ#OF~a)3+ǧ|t;o(cXF~k&O-袑wd~a7q-k6"={FÊ.VёGy35; #A #aǎW[mz1f ,4;uB FYYޑ#G4nm\C=d9nv?*6,fT,`n3xۄBhW\u㎶X &"!03Xc {Dh>HB$x)L^p,1P8ЫjN)~|axnr(Q+Tz2 b$&_!Q0??c`vGa>:1 H]p!C$jCu {RЫ`w}gR-*VW^X38ma+7̾Tza]Ij${zp3=3DB1]!x5b F_Ё(@IIGwy%u LE@~Ce&4I'{9|jb : i%IE\XlNn P~% b I2x0/J!PcRxg3<c y5׸|ЬiPzw-t /jq4i<~N\뭷J}$S^t xJ ?PKaB9ޑM)Hݺu& 5o ' X 8aźZ_sL5]B`T$HG}\qNV,{5LncC59wޱEHH,jbc*f0Ѻ?d7|$vBz>YzX::vo%cdN;Kp':f)L!{A&]v|pJ#/~1oc "!]@fL"!f:Zr aK-IY͍EHH>HX`=J/|93R[l4c1TD`¯(0[Xǩ1Sd}B@X jQ$&Im> JV_6+vFŐQZ!^z͌QA[,iDB15==+kA(GA+|CsB.iwïGS@I뚔WGx6 &< O=dDr|.}1S/@U#nG6tӐ_!Pur䫎*lxgx`0xH ܨk$ɧ[.P}뭷j Qĺtba滓O>=#b5IZ$P=R&NhA۽{w K*B n IC@L>uM g"n {UjH$EB K]n޺ƌk. ȑ#e=c܅^h1k\ЉH!ɧ[U)Kgkij ٱK.D >#&.yL}KUQ={믿BR۪U+t 2@n|VS_fw>|x|)s!ZrZU#yGzꩮunW?|p +Yg͍L6Qˇ|TNFi3X|3&@n55VgCi~C[d?3HBKohsB@0<7M!Pr%7 Tw}pqs|ydqСEM_k@d,fnղ0v|>h pzi9e]Vԥkm۶r\i$|>Uo>PM6uɂqp aWuɓݮO^t$aIyWSd<~xףGׯ_?wYg9s׻wo曻5\~\pn}qQGeu2ecI'dx_Gmԑ s}qﾻonVf~mVC8@9N>#G駟F1dc=իWZ 7Kj3ݣG^z|ygg?>. =fm1"?@X_ݻ[D~PW^y /DC{ݮyn3 }Я19y%prh뭷x/b#N!J=E3Έ!9d>>fc_ve#iɘ9K10/>s Dv[Fi=lE>]9Oэ7m喑Os=D=Pwqp7G/}3J1x jѢ *!kƞ 6}.7#dg~Ow#e kaٕ83[S,bqڂ .h~f^}UGx<^[nK3]Si嗷s=mk\$,әw^w,MLț*N=EBR*UBŁN;J"[R} *4i$U*ACµ^Ab> n֊ _}{8mo`^=c:1@0v>DB)+p Irgw-&Qr>c1 =E|W`w\&-Do-b! l1+hQ%țAF>Yp"/GsYfB7ɴzH 35kYG e&qBV^y86qZ NzQb$YЛHP;A! @Dz˖-C⺁2^z:&gyU<*Nd~5^M. %HNa3_3:b9N2xa tDBB'_ TB gTG! @hR&OLPmV |=&4N[.aÆ9LX裏ٳ9E$CL݅l̘<[!Pv(bPhPWm|GKsRB@A/kyPo߾f'61֟V4z$Y%;anwW@Juj4gl=G>O98ۿ/Kaόnؑo]{h6Ƨz`,\ܱFfj} Y{϶T;w-  $R߿a'QFn>^{mws19$}2#j Ln>v*D~xo;N>ܷzfycK. r-_y&mvyɬV_=5?񏐕1~:>g#@!B•ӦlAS믿 ð`6!d@8!\2&^љW8x g08;> 0uPmaW}fe%W4ft raBP"0x:Cz8կ%gի;cjh@?uPv+4捄q>R ޜpj@mqkuS_f:``jJ~¯(L>}9 GuŗHJ/S7<!1{}i%pz ;Zx-g 7Lu][WD̺/o/G<{UWE xtuٹ%Sܯ D>PKXBy3۸_GAy~䩱"믿>]Wm2@k*O>L}6]HČ6v~=0iI8>P#r׮]R™0m;m V.ugŸ(=0EjT|{nbI_.,8nuꫯ6mk8ow TF'ԁ0@ lB~@Y;!ömۚ`뮻%JdRqrWEW>jٱmgu6 Pnӛ߰f{'ܓ>8i8$u,ʁZ4S昼׉SgSۋn,_z"#ǁ lvm[r ?6qBfʜ&`nE(%Mrb41\+[\o@&~{U.`ފs;Lm ~UW5/g3є$;|xϜ&D/Qgk̻? >Yi7@TfJrN*KQs`WtIomS~馛:,u,93 L^ꚦ*^y]4\pAygW|@ϫK]S,^I8 _G8ÓH! I~x /7?FIgs]w%_ܕe@@Lysj7ߴAb} 1>ꗹNmUfi̕J^ZꚬXN{ilۉ<}jkj +5ʄ`zWީ`ќУdMH|Z+'u%'N'i^y1s^cW4W,KBI056p¢f8 IfHOU./gUl~~>|at  J+dPH ;vb}*7Rf?} owFuX]cN|̙}7nr uMCsBT|Ѡ!=sWY#Ю];s3hb $(D24`N~E}$pT"3g}֘5y100+ol}0nmqH,j;Ue=q] d!' Qjݺӏal7 fu_$އ@%Ч(x8<1JXg 5uAI :`=jݻww^x}0P7  d  :}.a0iT4`H́8Džu1'ѿ#)u%'f Cɺ$OL'D_$_to00`u +`qSD$D&a?%g0`a L*t߄"ErG SP}Lho̷0Ç&|mĬ__A0/1BDt .Y}@t5 o߾IK. W b $w3ha8CRXBc.Ƅa ,sw}eciĕ7\aSZ̄.n6sfFNZ(_P5bbPQZFgϞ4a„9ĐA(D`5$gDH@aBX@dP΀'jB^T8poP;:~cΞ<Я{˟AHk<cYWI3ū_a=X7bĈ8tLH+0ذA ə[A'"4j-TG_̢%glMn,}9CZ 6ۤ:Ћ.VfWB$r`HO0bٙ1xI#G:*wU}ǒ yQF v$0OK*l8_t5ބeiY&1,^ԝ>x`Z@,N]uUfw+*L'ѱvY~'.&`Y ]wq :|+@ |R 8M "T TlxGB@ 1tGkYQX n5z-5 !n>MV;5a5sM7(k׮+ "5.D4cFlMDVrnpd,:a.d"Hl" I>VZC=T#nݺK.^׸! 2$5Y+b_l۩ F2x6 !}$g 86,~mwG W# &6*K m\) cr`&C@L>m:=wqꩧ>}ԈXW| &v,58Qk馛_>c! r^sبwafI7=kdL > H/$D9#܃>XUc7tP@5`щ=s\j0xw}&ً礱Bd^]~sƿ6lJ=zXز&l>yW`9 !/2/{nw[cҚ ox$.e Bɾ.sB dޟG}dvCdvb"b*80qw"'[#X_! ʃ:3޽{|/yfDG C,$p -}2vd hd^Ղ4q{uQ>U~E_! *@ֲj8 4aRϣskXлm۶FN\H <'&%\ D4!C8lEB@4=Ys䛾+[;c ƍ cAw^ !P3oBY&\X }nVsI +8]}b_9 ! |^Z3}„ +aN;1quA@|]P*=6mZ?9dz^`b1\:BTﾳj|N駟:,W}7bx+ܱke9ұCaw^ 3ϸN:Y ! @Y^|8l0+:!bWR<S?_|Zk-G 7}tccǎHd]ĉ6n;d%|? < WBGs=wtyI9Zfe?#N[rx7򳈒َ?>V)kԉ ͒ϖ^uQBŔ%1yogˇQ1oƱW?Ը^I&Emڴ\4~-رcF^.zϮZ4Dbr|ϫa2<0{u @hL&cbI /k.Zh"_&zG#FD>]CE]vn:i2(+{X~ŋ]矣}#$BzgYx)>K/4 !mwk׼khN9㏏ӈh})gu[ !2- &M:y?25ƛ&~.rc|ؑ/[?#^$ڮ2Cho馐TwQRg.{O>1L7})E|(niBmj]k";_}o ^vi'yziuKn3KpO>d.QF*>ڽ.S@a~bD@:wl&X3wX!-ҥY$M' չB}3!`8Š ,mf:b%=&w=38)SX^a?/yYqTp'0p!`%D^.7>3~;j(Sonf(FEQz7SDbǕ@273bo`H!&۷oo[=:CPm0 ݁"KufwަZе{]A"ˮR}WKAD}3_~{DlO3f#ҾH!*ʵ:%l|#l届;~Cә<I:˜@~l䙱][dEffo[6&7-cS$@C KLl:xd]ݿH!v$׳;_)Q,h^dIo^}So+@ ,iE@L>-z ! ʀ|@TB@" &֖Qe@@L * ! @ZOk˨^B@2 &_B ɧeT/! @/B!V2B ɗDe!H+bimK!;vx &VQH%|p셖 ⑶{kP$+k{5\ХuxzH*Y "pǵNlj);$QuH?HPڥxX36)"! ,H$$+!QJB@|@BB@" &F+ ! b !  _|EQTjFDwupeYr-عΝ;C:y)z:~R:]5nUNr!0m4צM׫W/7h 'tn;e]V>-%$4&@wygkM6q:ur#FZ2믿XL>M !L:յm֍?ϝuYUVnܸqnk׮'ꠛ߿QGN>业A-ԻwoV[oѮ}Npk{\.] /lyW@;^+B \x5lK?Zh!믿Gy$fwN3]~߾}Eon„ 'Npi?l09ATY$B@~ henhVfhȑo~s_s=_s52,vdwc; ZtEKO晽!"RTv UB@ jQ^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrssg^k*NIHD"@" "AD"@ 2 D"20"@$"@@B$B"@ ;@   H # DL D$DL"!4 D2 D"20"@$"@@B$B"@ ;@   H # DL D$DL"!4 D2 D"20"@$"@@B$B|T=&7DtP&oJ&M^zq'8l2_ 0@}ݘv]A=C _7ozꩆ[o-zl6ˉ'(7|mV>裂OKx.rk뫯*'pBL!bxw> h}Y9,.Ⱦ+s\ve_ &lh+VX7o n7vKLgvUV1qҌ;6\׺ZpW\qh2P7uT?[k׮|,wygN\ĴXyA<ީ(ҕS8F+:0nܷ~tL 6`^Y l >zD:v_%&>Db pҦMډG_JRa]5kٹs}fy=:[v'O F+sYgf`Ogs*T0X֩Snnjッ^z5: , ӧ"D3[e-_5*I}Wg[PJ۷+*jL{¢1D,X@t%&5 :TK:TZ5Kl[n(0&L>?h|I6ey=Guu<>>ٺmr)ҠAEa_~/hVZb&X_qƓD`/ !|A9L\֮]\>D#meuǍ'\sM|r^… K䕨.%+4HX4Zn]iIƧڧ'iaَέZxq|Տ5:tH, 2׿ /tGqk߾cOnOs纎;m͜9ӕ33g޽kѢ]]/YGg}nFwx :3ݎ; H& g++ݘ G%}7%uq~?tm8,&ݣ>j{ 6t ti"0% rm0]?<+,'p<3T.N>du>}e80&;3x㍘^xڎ~:s*Rn!& ns[Zu饗;x$J۾nֻ~\fm j 3)] Xb X+sg;칦MF&>-).mTa}믇5īC VZ^WO„oS')N'YNWSNK.$v}x_}uQ+.Q@*}gSOr*2R$|F0]wuؠKy-%K&|4UbxITnA20&߁|jE]4(Û5kS}aCu!ŋ<>lWzucQ/~P]`F|UU_2ưtR{FgKafH07yu6CA+,nŦ)R^z)OըQØ!ځwiӦżWqg=Cx"3zhchȷq,0@=jԨ:{L,RMN;4 #=&L`Ia|tRs)mϞ=-O3|_7&{#YfP.0sd S}RO‚*8R>&t(f>Y8f,ڵc^N̠VW\ivuW~u¡Q&Q.fX0`,n@y>>~+4=a0A+h!+^ ~PZ|:e-[,h/0Hd*&sԆ~pE@{1ch/faSZaLCfX cX͘1âOyA#B>]ڧ'Q9^K@D5^>Z?fL'MtXas;pO=TL0 6L~g(Y< Ea悲ta3P)"Bޘ0c`]<]vyL"s#t_ c ڧ'2+"Ml\kG\t`lPƎkFN-Q\rA04ї R M)}DsQb`6;AA1u+1:!dĈn6|s N%-4u@:X؟ݤ~ r}96i2)u ߖ hs=#f2q&w h@JWf0̄Eg<ѽN]ODw>{TVQ?PtOq` BI|QRH hA+R'|bW}wRW-o*#qFfxwAxkVT>ЬT^שiIXPGlT(8^@]3<#$| = `q`!| `8tF,H#8k?Д |U 3W^-*& &'t@Ub5G+.Fa\t՗w(\h*+xO(Kw:"SQ^hĄ}?P7m|6O0YKXCkP֕螨@<JOSO*UDS(5T:B7-D5Jh0V1rf8rn]`i]ӧ'QY^LU56C>q#"=j!*'@w,}||&ﱤX M6K+k9 ̂C*-08`3O8 L)Vay{]nr!Z+%!T܋ RS`bNt֢{\WDY90}"{=EaC Ep_0ts4}n"& ^Q9&01SK/>M>ʪȸJgh,w |f~5 fzIђ' ~FRiQT D`8~!SqQyg~o6Kq}x:ұ * \tˊu2sQ~,Q[aQHSQMF{ч`c/XׯoL"!_w^7<=aop` eLP8ӧ'^ X/1Ž Dبh3JRM3Al `8-WUd~j ʻntt**C&UP! !x8BUz$<{ @;hGdu+bh0= G@S2ܐko= sS*Չ6KFfUaOОQQ@gB1l>) ցaF-p0C vP7QAM)QN\i}{>abB]b ڤ%35m@k/`'wpB[)$1*ʤb£nRTUFeU lp 맇p D?:QE # *qPe^c[V\iN`6P /(K@uB<^x PAUQ"yS! #=Xmy 0J&TXa0+(BTsuUT0h:,uvg@-? Wq"Tqg<: t* % [ҽP3Ll#Dַx~U0lA{ X{*->` m{w,'3 L HDggj)|}g}`ۂA-6}b5Me^y.IWN#: i`LzVjHŨ͆1NI>Wֽ)+NPuQh@lnc)*C)!~rCy8oҕ3˴X?VۄrZ((XjTz=30S(2,H#sQq0$5%O0ՋҔgP)C($L"@@Y ( j|"P$IIGD @&Q  DH (f3 eAL,"@@ @&Q$f"@ʂDYP3D"ALH:gWv]2]>S1ql7κQaUs|8ł?&w߭j !@&! ˛ S7: _~yynҥ<3 p %| 4n+[L7ҲeKszw8{o6jpcEO04a Og@%u,ˍFs}h㰿'r;w8vG veӨLDpzKpW Y=unux :0Eq/&\I X]j!QɢLɵv~ jmw"VXA:Ǻs?, @xgTzX&ecIӕY2V%@L"0a`O<~"*>}3'D |LW\GYJ"@&Q f*dp)b*a~EgY ZrJLT&[̈́>=l㑩z2 @&+$xU馛De#+VH>}D}-l{k7o{WBytQI.J>/<~=&68qy6x:c68qM0R V\wu !ւ&P,tgi&]v5,{8=gΜ)MiԨ#>m^i74yQR8>Z]?(Ц~MljMqo-SoA̅‘#G5nuT=E]F% M6ұcGF)OЙ)؜okW_ 7>ln[͟1Ƀtg~7on+~EcZʲ4,L|4W9- W_mx_(4AО`a1;uj頜Vy̹6}SWAu?8gkƌ>]|VW p>.sCq\0-|ҒGcyeѣG;ՐpIWr8={ 'x?:6Axg`/9G駟8 )F)b|ag:Sp8z$zp}̛nәvLt^{G L'Ѝg`d*|nw|"Yy+WgOq3G} +&<̀)kbNշGz&1x`d @4]j՘K{.oOGӽ ;p 30Ց[vm81"Oѣ>|x̳6N&tA7kן|I4+y͞=|Z/o١F.bQSy?蠃c)vݜ L @~Ĉv^g&fyWgvHڵt06؂q*1dM"5E?쳏=mb2сBT^m6]IY]}ؿ@8TUUT5DH>-~J3񚮢ce&ܹb"wL:N>dhTdyITj G&g`{ｷ@ ǧGƎk3Aن+6u/%XD=WZ؂ DnZ&MdEaW* ;%۰zL קD$V0 "ie%4O^&}ER%$}Q&i+0 8"bbE=sYg^l@6%++^@c M EE?}VW@5LQGy$**& m: @zjiݺdfɶr@d( GDZ~&_0XKCPYmC1cH"qe]f{R`(cǏ jN^OT:6d9?wo(o8Y#0ax]w_` SrӥzK/xcEm3 Zt~[:a0M06},{5}oi>>#X"D7s`O|/lFliDR͚52?O#9#: ;+Q \$*caK,)gsäjv RL[M#+ D`-1q(4]ߧjH06W?#_0;M*(ϓ/p0_`u #I &?C[㘐{ǘ0pN xCL0)NQCK}H9ΰԚ:UȩNH ᪱bTHwt:[prB?DuҨ8uxPTWgiJPPviPb㩔諼`LŽ;N.de Xxv$Fq:0;u=27ox=[խ[- ` lMz݈j\99=1&+7#B߇:;9:387ecXx1=7>1nB__U4g]):]:U*,uR~ PԗT`F V=fĄWAO{b0Lثז5oA:Zv *|/+o<8lL\8>#{,CoT'*bKB ]J2;֜"u'uY D  ߾c͉ YGL""@@"@&}ǚ"@D!fDEL"5'Dd2C DkN:dY"@2;֜"u$1 D/dw9 D Idb@_$Xs"@@*NJ>)DѿT,H1l_4֩S,<ە/O>,D8K*86:SNpEO\S=R}$K~℉$L"O:$s12uU#{ 50Sͨ8xB_x Gܽ+W_}u|X "-ukzM&=z@s!.rKLkԏw;կZvbSۢ~NC9Dԗ=Z?\{{1+;l0KG; bz LhڴirכM62|`oK/TnF+>VZ믿#/$"@@#pg8]nݜ)w+W ꠃ[lSA馳ŝyβ>mNf_|SNgNWYfsNo]~ݻSݿN]_pn_~ō9p'ɓ'Zkv򊥻+z޲/{wGugZjmD9+g (l=\Y~yUV^z%qg[m@5&L`b)sTRE:t ȫyRF iԨQ?#FEl2(σ ڵ]w]8馛jժZQfbqlP/<쳂Πi5s9yQN֊"Dh(Ggr]w(iԨQA&h}UmYF0hl]ڵkgqX{3zTf @Tg_xyEW A<.|YJuJÆ -!,+|%֑8XM^Z>acE*ʑ#ӍiW_5-=鞀SC9͖^^|R e7g~Y:(wp}q=袋ܻkEӍiӎRiE!?e>n޼yF)ֽ|jҤr- ZqY{LKʷ39XA"@V 1coѢʫ@pBS_hUyB Tu/Dw+H@iXqƦv1O4)FD"%$Re`p؞l0Wc6_ ?ېu#՞aH 0 #7°T>$ʇ&D4T-e CL|i"@@A#@]Aw/Gm?6G$XK"Pv `Pi/2MtC $ȡ`U@1#f XbvS҈HTc:p$֣5CיÒ9"PϦgϞdT=W4!D  x895_/?'=oORTh=D`̘1! j׮m aQ> r#)nʍ~`-@A"?!alҪI%OA+ ք AYf1 bv_~Y^2 a%c 7DW_}>q 2D D7*wA&}A`͚5rʨQbQ°AoqJCFq7{'`0 *g2[0WœG`ʕҿ;:#أ:ʌ`@*(dK@;vp'0'|Rz)!/Wӗl 0iq7Tp%QV 8XF(. QT[ 2uf•Dv +F*K͛T)y8 2cGw=(ij*8 c@F9s]'1tPy@L:%Q(.y@:Q\Æ cX @&Q&dL4<ŭX"H#8M*^$"Go1{, x1bԩS'&7ʼnU`"G`ܸqҨQ# 3x<őA j>W!0xI >̌pRhFak"P(o60hРG 4+ ,@.#0|3;wnPMP$JD _QUW]%_}Q\˖-(nצD͢@E!(.z(r$ "Xvy ;B\eB8SEש"tD xgwxQ_y2\W3HDFqww!E,$qa( H8Ss\ItrD KQK/N3'A5jԈ (+\I9>G*o״iS 3]wnj#d1\$WܹlZa!Qo4 Fqw 6L6t D SId ICOqGPJ-i(.Y@L" 2K")f͚e-Zd Oq]v @N?t7;sFq6~[$rXAFqS\(yf>HKٌBBLzmYfϞmFq . XZ53 i‹\CL"z)(~'3 erɓ'#GW_2(V#)\I$D }`MGy$] mb`M#Dw_?<Ņ74iD~u'kp%׀de˖Q܋/[=(f͚1!WSgN"˭jFqa.Ǎ'd9uTp%"PLFQ\^䭷 )fA^1\IqG`͚5% Qܐ!C#\A(70D IiDZG?;ʇ~kI˖- o5 8XRϝ;WZn($ ن 0byw휥QgFpa:Hϟ/\rlY3%@T`D o͋b 'xO>RJ_"Pppດ / 3#<ҌviL<@N#DNw+W`M6Q\zNA%$ tp￧GL"ﻐ $Gwy'a D"ł$RMK 6CoVj^L@ IJOF?/"` UV-ẁ;dރ? D pO"2k"@@#@&="@DeD|GMރPիW̙3ߗZ_5+gp>S]&!dyiVez$sO9íK.5=`"]tɋfC; :ّ@! Y!b!J+vAܧeA]<3okZe#|F+|"?,[m|2o裏̺m۷/O-:ȕD>Vu/`'O>Dj׮--Z0>3qk>^YK8<u f3gyF>`9S- b/hQFdh"Y|Ò!=#QF_G*oyeԈe5x 0n&A0Z,~7 U ŠB RDWaaߦMچ3|V1 y%!B3+Wvmg۔(/BLgF$f=MufW_}GϞ=e [ !" j׽CP]~T0CkHAT|:P?CxBxop\EL"W{f݉5!!@&Oź"@*Z\W0,.7,a5TV8?$ ^(8z{UVor <%!p"?.#0Ñ0#"$b]"жm[93'H#2bK,BTS<@9SF"@&נ`4V (7Cɸ;퐾8" Pp֭[E] p:,$"@#0&a~8oq}MƍG~p?  lblgX>}ҥKX!CȠAZ!‰dL  J"!4p rN{1 ݌xM@,ܓŃwy 5j jժ%cƌ1CpO`dD#@qS4. qVSNoݜD2!D`C\` y { AL";2 !+عK/r^\r%f(F|`xA,,ˏ? B8:ȨQaÆ`^"%q%`mx'LҞ`_~ ƒ_"Pp%Q X|W&O1c1!D p%}YB)2rHiҤI idҤIO D) 2d $,M  H޽75giL[lE "@*2ǜ%*ׯ7ۆkF:zh3  DA`ٶzXpav Pm5@L"7(jf+ަM[=> 7s? 6؀(鮻 Ė[n)#FYfk6 #yWyyPZ''NnnLuw  WS RAԮ][{1y駅 ` )`(έ-Z6!F֞={ʍ7H<@+<|"TYjiѢ3zpJ{TK$rs̱Ç~u7AСCZjA8/$r?6@K kxolOYf>D!7aJ{9SkOi 6|s[_2\)փ$ʎ]>j*9̟tΝ;Dݺu&D J";2>n8Sk}ᇃn;y衇+ 2^@+7bɒ%FNt)xf͚`^"P p%Q fvd7 b]wiӦ/dBG+yW^{up e2l0dMp^"PIfU6@K鯿 jժ^A/(l$ n݋/(}Knr+  ŃDuҖ^Z?|?~|LN:A(>q]|}^P_iaQV-+Vd% c((.e˖hiԩ1'xvmƄC+sی[iӦfՓ)SȄ  `@\IDRa7e,A D2½ß38C/^4zree8:QX7?\pr}4C2j(iذaL8o p:M5 :tvDt4AWY_|W&OSt;v!&7Ddp% 72dTV- D"J"P+g+Z*知50od޼y "DT Ya֌o^Q_}@s//]w%wsϙZ+K7\^_f͚Y"@**AYN7nH c^9s`  oF{o_Azƌ+,.'7`?;>C8YΝԭ[7k"@@ & ҕtMc=d3u뮻:u=#u/tt0۷z馯Y|LM7ts8᳙Pס`ȑm0aB&aD!݌l.1cS'7nŊkgO>qoYzdkڴkР}d>:2~1?p?0>lWV-i'( Ɨ+p[}PߛoمW`:} h(S}8sHDj +tHD\C MZM.]Hu,?0H/k׮v ךGq辀\^tCt/>i(FfΜ42Jk1)IJ>t!:jh x{Cݕo*Дgڂs mݤ}V}O{"@@e!qc:W"4TT,|MfOÆ -׿,/Ol2K݄q>Sq8,a쵴P|m7L>*4ppƒSԨQ#xD\E cL:aOh*&2Zy9餓 D.L=Շdq1͛[6.3nAuQ&xmQ= MYI&ܹscr9cT "0k`2eg`0Q,~YreT++`B>A`!M"Dc׷%ƒ;pnDfP$Qm$Z ߓnbO3?^Ò%KV~E/1?e(%AbuYvC؃4m4k#V$"@@A!tF`+$h=Ap{l%^7tMЌVNsvmM8e I&N=9h'%"1uYpr;snK/4:(z-a#}ǴԍӃLEVHT$É y@Ǝ:9XQ`xb=zia zɆnØ_Vn*X@L97AL@ ZMڵaÆ٪hmQ%DcJ)L*$"@@!#=B)6Ԋ}} Wi0ڞ8 $"@@"@&Q=v"@2MY"@ 2BY"$2" D*dڳl D IdDfA(T$ g."@@ ̂"PIjϲ]D @& DP (Ԟe @L" 2 "@@"@&Q=v"@2D@dDBELP{"Dd:IENDB`7|Ddd rrT   "A ?Executive Br Mayor Commissioner Sergeant Street Cop orney Gen Prosecutor icial B , Court Magistrate Prison Picture 9Executive Br Mayor Commissioner Sergeant Street Cop orney Gen Prosecutor icial B , Court Magistrate Prison " byQq: Cbݡ-kyf ncy9 O,e 弜PNG  IHDRBбX!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss(C&u } R*UP\9Ԯ]%J@_ժUpB$SrvFz ay4,Ev@H`l5vnn骁")UHj;uo4^]^:bc[8>^oq:sh\zHr&J.G)`!!5@ōդca7ߠo߾7? ! ҥKhּZO:͛7c-cϞ=(UN<jbc֭!#uUU~jE%i!t)xx).=y lق.F=z3ɣPu̐!`ٯr$ҹÇ㥗^B97i~Hh0@Ā}95at1j%+/bHgPHY{g6>=z?kVb lsK஽9V"~x,fĉ?~'m^|>c<ϟ]IV@!zD\\XBdf yڡH"I_NӞyvٲe3hҺZ +F*+f~ьV+Q֨™y O>K4-~<2j [u3&#/A}UN;MZdyA#zK^8n/Y%ffߓ~w %TZKSqqÒh<6ʕ+JcbV.^^zw0$%E4W%P#[ϓe$(7gt*S}< ̄άIq픚`)с =}pVdXIler,d,x:%]R</Os!16 6DDV7F(_:v6Owbcb7gMG!{+=7EuYXJ:z\F_|h7yr҂]P!T\ìYa#ٳgэÆ w}du2xxom门[] E>pl |i<>X Gn.$da>ݮ]O=/=G_~JƗTVV1Bh&!d8DSbΝD7>}Zw[d~x$C:=s x.]/(u7rmաlf`C];. b{"UR6lP׵k&ǎ))[RTlywp&S?`  8ɭZC[Í=q| [mW'aJlNO@Ru[׬S F$k'W#ݹz Y"]9 fFa/_E~}w@}J}?//Nx OGAkbFѽUu?۲M67̀u/ vؑCc'Gg„ 0ώz=W 7$oUѫ͏Aj*ib RP@6ڒXj`/]i՛V\\YбMk ,;nEH6}1K"ڜe1ǕݠYVb&BG(XHI 6>!O}]AH[2,_=@]%zMݕ$ ņ?ד^#> x&GĄb -(HRI෋dYT–uPr%Uڴ]+=p7lVXgEs]bW<^YHWeE`uurf-:t+!?-v$Dz K <5LH I>b&gz ֑ b@…=3Y6ْP\4hG.3?Kvhծ5E6(SFž1Ù(Ymug{ߞ,n۩$_m pDO3|K/†>2R j SȞK ϬfZj#<`(3f^k׮ʼn'F6m0g%U% s&c#"_.x2ԅ׳#⛹4*Ug~FX$kq*CCC{jͺCcA4<3}Riz^/V+䘽km(bZEpy4#CegH|-vJ*α * $ǥ:8qCRpI1KX(X\٫m(m"fcW_d0:Za$]{8e|TΛ=ʔ-vy ɓ9 ,p6rvbkqj]M9|g+U4 #nCڲ~zO oW \t˱ݦ])@z82y[7M?;`@@S5 %hotTxz8a]㼹W^A%Ii/A+6'GeBbd';26lؐBLƏgQi篋i㫘;8WfaNb,^1I)/ߍtuͱ-Ew;vꘊIXpuדDŽ{gE,~&D {]qhtO <f8\S.EUvF(˾U6)/J7mS`?(:G(X|({5Qi,f0}[O^w~LF3%7I<OnvڍI'aiݷOx#U%5Pߠ9;иI.mIY^68dHEJSm` xгW.R=WpxKi/ʍ~ػwMw3<uHm%źš!غm+ 1VLIsQ@AK*D*g9Z-uЭ۷#7b(ǁFyCI=S>kRgΜU~\ ,r>/%͚=,u oF"%* n`QxhV^RT$ sD6U6>ӯ #EJXI8 JBqNS%NӶPܵP?jpRj6܌ɬ^9 F8 䕫Qv2>7S^֯Q%5%!YU;RǑ~S,A3[K׼5m ̠Z)(ĉ|"Ο;FDIm/nb7ZvmӦ-HoջwR@~z~]:wV;$<ٞZf_!F/ UWL$T3VƙX$KsppD(u^]#F/P:G?.--bL -DC [˜*ݣQFωGf-ԛ`Z("ub Tw>4y_IG`h`>i&bJ TCvgl[whO TSfoq#U9'wJ(pޠu3E%EoemGiwJs~zTqz)Bg+hdV>|˓-oġ.&LDorqNE@׺][RY෕IocvD租VR$VR]gtV=qt! essa3FòjG[&7]҂r9.F,Y"% )IFę8\;*%J cIzbbURiwN/ٰA>LG,m0CbI>ѨQC)RvZ{=ۓ_Lrn4fαyF* f<OJ>;tđGZ^9|UaE $E(OIqJKef.ƕ^~tV"5"miC%O[nn͎Q=Z@o@00t\hMRwws:V1%ο˔6n9N)z7ʕ|S8qSqWqR*=mnZ{VyR3g"rcK4j:-+,Sf=8)EKeL|qj4l82֮S0\ӎթnꠓNN'Zggv7g3D$& s_ ۦFd`C:\ETXҧY0 6LѦ%Z-| hK"zLAKf:N!gnR=E(cH^uhӮF4F;Rvi5J1*hTTX{X4iPW)+G@a ;m61!hOIGh R*iSvu߼guzy:wyZy<A =4bozK/pe<ϟw$rC88OfyhmgB&g6Xy7axg^QLQ8 v؉Goj"{oR9M%{TVrz6ڀ8Cruqu!׫~H:iHjK~I9GQYwԅB'񺺺&kEz?PN]rqݍ46_$Cn}Ju ;W\6ؽ0|RgZ-d6EjR]yQc2KE2={*Ё6a'z!A -Mic-lȵ~;im 8ao ^qյE2 ޴5P `V[ڔ)TM)5-P(}lVf?\df Pr{̎vb&M'u*W g@ ^`r fiFyEބC;׼mh?2St3D2zNHh S&v(&<;1tFk>r8q8(ϹnI!yEIqnWdҿ FD`rsDQRH]SK&t# BL"„ېɝBkHad @$P² GسAc3@@ `c +v}L3Y5f&0 . @(Rc .^=MiZy0<Ul @ $ABf0 %2 AB拀ǚｑ l*p(pL,L(U3!!TS_2ZA!#Ayy\uӲX刅QXmI &B˗rGΝMԹtc,Q IiGR!x(PbX(^MUG Q$ *)MixEãA0 yA O[˖p)O 6Y(Lt$XE{prI[l=BoLKwI-0Q IiGBȫެYH[ϔEd=Zf*qc@^-5{Qۗ(^HJ.t $) /@0c&WV@|DN*Dq*# Y,z[+qcĜ;ww[:ԸHkf0 -2(AxnbNš5p^)#Q Ҩ `y:\]-o2#0]lllP|D"9Ęm%7Z)dS]Z8(, '};;J] F@\ 1\n_|Dߟ˥#`16TI(AR#_=@M`_#"Sׇ0Y)sc.=>>mJ61\YX-(JV{we@&jϣ}LjikFb|u &g[I0E1 "IXs,~9 hS#rZHAFP@U[]"61MA ;Dmۅ/W&6\*uAF! T?!Y?r2@T4B/GCsA Gd9jM.@ ]<$\;k(86,i,A-Ӵه~MD,kq-Uzlᖟ"#S(448?^vi$&a ʅ@bB"=3mPwIγ,Q>t)JF*U/ :mڴKC70axeܸıcx~0lݩ+ HOllmDw8 Ms(ҷ!%Flb,Y Y[L (?zRk/xyyx4;Slې |GMD@sg`!掙CLtYRdIkH\YJDHdw,Ԕ*@TiŏHS 0fXu_~\\\pM/V gggVS#L `AqfV+=z>F U~F8Ij Bϩj<6Gأ0DDD` GGGas+hҴˌ+P .]B޽~{ ۇÇs򥋘:m:0@] 0˿gϝGxXޝ96ęS';aQh1;9.uS?A 3#d7qt@9Sh;_fMyA >]l f.]`#8_0 BW_ܹskHHL vn߆VC?O+E.Oi^g>D8p""ް(SC1jhW#'P93â5z kߚ6|kffSH?֬A%Ws=zs?Rײa17S|e`ÿQ]vFէQ?A 3bOF+3{:b%r^2@_F=ٽ Mikdgg}}1%n=z %F)Jo H(QZSV$}wo߁]sޥ}PT)>TIRą A@܌z͚W'},\ iwa$aooX %<ݭ+A 6_8b>v$i#1JW8rj֪ +jo$UEH@b|"V)_!pſ~$,x䫑ȔQބ3dHR BW~}uxl}暪 Atd~…ѷ_?L0oNOzcge\3(Q"9!%gf܈0ɓFR_;Zɉ1^B@}ٟ" HǸA(i>uW蘿c!wzy;.ycdEK&Z>#= &B@n q%;}7BRVD(, `XЌ66UhS?4{.n=醐%+:6#ܞ %1 _2{PB;QREڽw`0K{:Ǐ8: 'ǴT9uVܺy :d*VV碢pqs ?/_mHϵ8qM W:if~k_χ/;`@3M,]-ԥ˗qt j&aGHZ%(ޛ5m[JaZӧ<8~$_9s(0~8<ղ%ʕ/ RPuŠUo@OzI"ؼe3m8z䨚Nz6؍CS8|IeZϝ=l"*Wה-[FD1 G{T~9M!A]ƍSloS8{nܸz n)wA kc׎p멾˗1;-8 @1VhF*!qZh˖ I#CUS׮]GQ"(Y")t86nEza׮]Dj#]jFSPPncm7M?xتT[IV`rB,FQuha6mPnr`'jeH5ϣ3}p~ n1q(Ot<<<FoĪ/YDDD4]JOO)A\FTk"MhPX'Kڕz[A>xn]⭷##$?s24k݂XU#^U#V[eKV Q8XUG+OAl(FQVm%Ui5[e`E K QO\Oٓ}v8"bbcecN"á#U9jשMT^hF eܻwh֤W.__~R%չSN)czD?GZ,0# 'uVQ>sJ7nP.5jTOzJH0G#70}f_xlq.d2o%iz|nU GԽ@n,kk01p""&vO= l#2gԛX V!Bڰ0o# xo*6UX|ІS쐱pԦFv]ݥKsw}jU;(u[S~-&j2kf8~ÉtI۸vohkys>Ҙe8L P(EA_+@A@@EAK2FA@|aw ,ٻ%Bm  /yjH;vڵkQBE 1sݺU  `2FNxsCcؐ\-\M6\C7%ڣGۑA@(lu~Hd98E1 0il͹7WϜ7oٓ}Vիӏ? *`Y{ V=r @^|P0 60Fc' 6 '+B +d.A)OjR<%)q^WRDARZ7+o\Ǿb5z `ݘ4yO}%Mq S0WkTQ*rY{ywgD=ɴlbC=3 jU qaǶmhպ > ?{( uddޙ&O(sEvF}6¿]UдQu@g0Ei'o`$ _G٧m[A;`/_0j$E?VO 1B d(BQ,3>]Iߠ^2x}wgEtիW'qGʹsvf:N*'2ࣹ$ CvR6:#iD d@!`RF֒mv8s4P.3(3?M7O+Z  =(: 镔be_ńNRظ~=xrU%9B|(^ϘǦFD*krNTMS/ꃥCU-C vg?Z?M:\rer׸\-X(&S=ihRgC Ү={vqNNΨPVPJI7פ]4xMIi-ēd4VןQc`8 `L(NR4>S2ldb{.VH3v,&NTIΔԣԕLLU(F8J@a£ֻ$GQ]ؤdh,!`24>G&]H9)bg9R]wVnR2xkА=N^M#[g2sYSi%ؕ) S)PXJnL3Q)C9Z>B$ltTE-z8t`?olD8nFO} 0َə?$[,.C bXPl62rtWD9аG{f"XGμ)n_L8}Vwb7\Gy ?3;o.3|&U~.+W1\^U( Ga'AQO & fFG1Z͕'Cxg;y𾊴=K[w7wCiOWJXFQjU>5k& ‚,O|1ph^{5 ysp7XՕR2 !hGj!E^lj[>97K:͸o>&a-wf&PҦJ1X($ K&hʞKn"iyo!AH*P,X)`WQSSU]0]t]Ky@z9.ܦ힂g:ز&փac'yL)$'3p6<0Psol٫W/Ԥ)xivЩg4S׵u,g6 Yrf%31%UENTpOLw 8{*jѢE7;S׮?O3G>i3(Lt@x9񚯯/%3ΛӽU4ś|єJ0mڅ!r{8LN3`tIYE_ kC3> :o5a*sM@ƍQpaر#Eo-[L_./ƅ{$9hwwwՋsB(s\ɕnOxJx"ܾGV[ w;RժU#TZo&4v&G?I B3`XR*Lei(*b#Ɉ`JSes\/[.H@IIm۶Xn"o]ږF߮}"P]^ \իW!Bw.V.`Os2/[I`nY݅ޞTbNSǾQ!; S&oO 1%JY6tʓ+w$xXJKpv׌WaWlJGjs LmM۶mCRО NLC=BAnݺ[ZoɁwV&;!bRqZ7_t&Od5Z7zj;6"kZe4IEaITOF RY1 +L9`U 19NlC`v7] #B>}%ЎP[qt/Ou88Y=ѧOG0JߓgT3Oj*3*^8q !Y](r 4߼ː'&C <<a8kFmVO#bL%@v%?1F@jV "SqyԮ];i6}gx hb:dfƓbSX:'cI+I%!tElWaF笮b ,v (*L_ٗ-fkǛX="Ιϳ~C_qo 燐Y"P]ME^uC]Js'hܸq#ޕʐxIhjŔ0sE׬Sg#iy!g{TA\k*,vIl`f&p}!Nru"Ú3‰ޚ[N=>_OQ+%_Ip %rK'0HoT 3oڞ & δC#Z0ퟍ,5<{HRF*哘l֡Xb(+tj46Lki\}6ii?s՘1i[Rߟ 7%;zs{Hgڮ<'a_VDg4&Hf(ړA[ب\hQݢ]wȔIp+HC}9JQF'ZngD"rM H.Fs,j*[#" :*j蛟0 }HAlH.R{Y4(> )"-{=8kf(4$3cGId2XV  9J@4y#$$փ^gy{X:~9IEA@LDd5dz 'ۣG#0z)B% fۧSvm7f4*]90CgYƑg? ZD=d$M] :;\-k2@!36lfxcQM1B)^CLe0JR{9*$0 y}b. I.EH aVY꣏BE^|Q:b(dꂀ az@"{ \ B C@cbe IRH Ev*u#(4^BV!CSDT@ [DMg<8BFjfga&_,(,NG(+ȯԩ(5kl-Ns|A (Ra_>ɹqcYd `r,F=ؽsg |eH =&QR< Ƨ@,(vЦՔpD^A>VhEVD WjjLT[,F˔I5>2K&8QZR}$}H aޥ} ,N6+:E  (OMdi.2aSff*x̵k 4I!(J(Mډ;F[ =FDB%>2'A@0,Q0h Fxvzlj@E¦~}ěɃ$E ׌Ƽ)cvXJЕ|a3†67C]o]N""`& 5jӴ).tDbJ&d Q,`oF+@G(yEy=%P&iYD~$]I' d(44vQQsp)>A@yz8גN wsݺ, 1̥D>vZpvtƹ 82 Xy6бj?qw4P [[x jo<_l"`tFIayҵN`} 2r"[ѵGl7kO;Jܙ})D{>|Yʘ?tbFeǬ׊@w2/GxfbLUO`ۤ0)5A]D*ŋ)/^XK.֍?5CtJqqqx{[›ӧb\oĨQE;RHfdO2`L~#ߑb&쾭IdֆA](_"j֬%!!>&;s.Dddޙz셠 r^ ~/8>rʥpy̙װjUGiUUsޟd/Qr0|T7+W.cq:ChTPW^AB\<sy )S{bkP|DS> {{|Hꬖ[k t1\I)s(>kV US ,r f% hѢX 4HQuНTN>>eGsQA}>‘Çn: 1[BBBqj)z:_lYGBǻì9sЌR>;p1\*P. 6k$bŊ35xb~&չXjK2"!'fXK IC™S'S&iK+uu%Fv[3qz%$`% ڼi#\)Q(1 f(KՉ/IM= 9(&& GO("I(/[%K_)ЁuQ~L4 d|ғ~_gb[[V(Կ?HO~!A@<{-Z8-Y VC>Ehg''QIo$F 9ڽKyou-ZiI+&L S&Mgc]j#!jw3Ϝ:ϾJ;% X6QLN+!IFfuÌf;&>p!#[k;d~[=e흮 CX暶M,\rc\r$i-! =T쫌AIʅ]s=8r_OX'ɨ1˵E`PpRO=A{|3FoF(t C_q2"29fJYaܙ#ը_݂¤*?C.'$%"`t%oN!>'nwZA@QVnԤC(kui"  `]dS6PY!A@(.A@F(أGHA25uLdV X7z/A SQd TAFa_f/@" u# º^LF)DRAF@u " "S ֍@7Y7|2{A@F~X7)FMraԫjE)EN O=*2T2K%azge^ gTWeIЈRIY )=zLi_8Ђr3ۂ(S1uL@%mQ?\G`ݺuj{ +A "J X4(,A@=(r E# ¢oLN@||<9XvQ$c p<`wV___ӧ7o !ڷo4i .bdV&&@ɒ%1i$|ʞ={Ю];+XpTQbE-Hzge^ wwtmڴA:urtt 1*y,"oLJ{Caxw0g+V {ůΝ;QM1n8̘1#cǎ)ɓѥKXBÛo ɓh۶--H $̸ > 7ovZ)SF1aÆH"S`̙ʶ[oAG8sbϟGFGll,l׮]믿C8q"FiIg7B X )rʉݻwOW^b׮]7nܘA˖-{|۹s*_lYbJ][}> @E@KA"`p111Ou>,,L}VW26F(Q ԩS7itao7EEEbͭVkJvd\ ˗/+s΁pppB°dN)S\hHLACŖɞ\>{B6&qOSkިeɧR}Y_&'֚~4Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss2:2h.6ˁ'8$I?f12e~P\Q@9 CK'g{tQ¤B!S2Rs%.r(#s-#L ׈@Ybi Kot΍+eK.-1zN!55`eɼec˘IH" 0XdQi Dbc{ߺwOw' #g bwrG, C#e$@OK[xaL郩QQ}ԝ:_߯ʓ'C;1dt ƍg<*=A0|zsj(̖ȈtK]6ÓapHi T.^ԫ' 1`'ߩb apȑC ^H)>>VXҥKa-Wu ӸbE^***;jʗG 35jdTt&0Ȟ[7e[Ahgij r:9:0J$/S$nn&ACC3J(j6[r5fb,"wS雒^"`&U aE]#p쯣ÞpptBTd=nCfKn{v| _NWҴ\l aÆ5j[TfJXhNN`Ȥj@}hM} /|w]Ŋaׅ xg5uG`⯿ȑZ_H7Sex9ĐL۾7FJ/KžRUq5@ZeSR(*JGeoaDZ^pKҌ2>z >+p1,7FQQsGn"Ӥ$$2 IWW…<^CJЦc;̙N!GbĔ XRDWp=;6(Ȝi9`e0w\,Xׯ_GlquˉϿ0~"P`Auw*\wT2`X!o^/RdZW3o][¤KG%pe324JWiV ɋ?{>+2BOq26CSmES>>(;7}).Eʕ1E yxCx'03:u¢Ν@)9.'1U+2ᶤ=M-uNؔaP\\]1,^vNVlj PaKG ǣjڴ)Χb0L.ҺuuvF!"` eIJp)~As|TE䁯˙⊇2aԀ!u<珡`ۆM:o)38c,6[>s0}g.O~}Tk֢~j> 'O?c<Nuq b4^ZVZɣ1sd|ң/o~J(inr׮qd)NF2tP,YR3￣ m۶Mr4+U2ˢ+3*:nH4_׮X?}ϥn NA%A`NIm}zHA [-ZV4n$ǐ~%&k_.SJiVGVMU͝<]ݼ=.ZOmߵ5kjeqY. |0 -}}P_w`!3d {VŠV hf<|P+լeJfP[QQ殓y l4BMES₮}?x|2S\9}=NGO;v>Ԡܐ!qtyxgbѸx"Μ9-[w˵(Uw5izzzb4J KLhhֶ3ڧq]t9_)$$~+/gY R@|TOd|oZ))B?•tW3dAux߽SOc$ k P7^ְ( n]w@0qV;']DKWJ[?Ufj}'/nn%ݐWN]?Fl08,Ac>>k߄u㚕 `0ad:3"WcӚur`hB#-3VoџKahNM):ǺU!Bs8䀊¿q%-}àCdhGsZbn޼f.',%gZ7o>+?l8ʛWT&u־QN]z2< # Y߿a$@30H}jaVEy{n&ꞩ)6C֭ 1,et|%cJVYnZ.-fU{H]D C>]s^>pL^\ ^=R}[%Zf,ȀVy:-Dk`嗵?HW}ob䥴52In CԢuǎIh ]f5B%KPf̀䑗_D'5~qEfz Ղ 镸Nb4A': <,%KŠy_h-=wFhzn SLϟ9)GjL1{x͛X2jݺSMV#F#ݳg5k0e6Dnݰxbȏm$MJW/B%/Υ YN룕  9S3LA~g#5޺w+o>q}rAZVQazj>L0) =nRJJNIޔl17iз28o 1$<Ժu~mo!6bi /&6&Lьmw.vV~B*f7DzւzОs6Z[7n {~ȓ7}Q}pc6HlL,bʯl(] oކϔтo<>[ծKIWj\XJUU㧽{M5򖣞)!o.$fmpeV{w|e!OH B / t~@RC}[|hWߚQP51dǑDZ>47 i%5OޗtҗPHa4tDRٰ.:z^+\^lL⻍w[wJxﻵbj5̟:ؠ\8{{v nxċX7>5òyФ+ڷZǰT=!鵲L~رZK*MUU񫱎d mh4Z b.K{O)B鬞-w:/30}P ?+pe=yM y7yDjN(R);x2ReY_mr/,7} WTJ2<bP-%j,"mFￄ1(c | <-̨;ʠ)H(TPuc©@J  : FAŗQH*-Џ,Mu%YvQQ{ 4 YÙ a$@$5h3S! !@`1EEEIH k0d gB$@Cb @aLH,YLQQQPreVctS[mB!'͙0C)Pfj7ËIlM'262 -#& $@`FIH 0dZFL$`.k7D6J0C du>"9!An'^Nl^tp-;+,9$=2z )#@Ð:N E$IlWe;uHE&.sx JUMU3fKK.=NJ@dߩV-vLKKl,-f웢[;w0 Zm[psDuW..Җ,jɥGI je0KZ KXYF5i!D&tI?(.{mTD9R/0#7mBCIW^[={LaI.+Yb0ҡn$`)XWj6a`&K{=*.>;ž};ݻ͛hXf(|{yTbF*BCQdI]J1QzE0A2ggN7R7\'=]RCeM>0/eĪ(a#̜KP@1QMy HEP|rir'aɓ(T8(E7}ŝTO/MROJL2<15~OdvW|ڵRj!jyDnkh!5 JnTZܢG.2(zw_j(FW5l!2h^_Z7,4 \:ԍ@TУ7n6"Ѻu8"U@tOaTM25t{\sG)EF' Gh8mʽ_- 0_- ?|~HZKHIJ/3jN)%3e\CI*vcl7q4TRo me`T6K`d*)-odNTt(ԛ1-dqw%=r+]18m!ʺRM?1ܸR#Im ImN?qSoj&K?Gf^xqܗ=PnΉQ8+oeCS=+]:ALG^ӔD16;.&P}Y[QL&{6ErM#Syj"e "QPKOkƤI+HwՑH=T puT-2 C " S4OD JW QB j @@CmB}('YIgHH0XUq23$@$~JJ?C@$554))=ET_ٜI>w}c{0 r@`@H ,[-ٻW[spKߐ[k` +Q'@Ð ۲a5 lT8e 1d GB$4s]Rv;],Q CֱfJ$@8#c%t(YG]IYǚ) $ 'GvN3Ig %bپ}Bo^g2LI&8o+ !\dwՂM|V2]<0H [7 5&B@@<:D^,x:R4Gw=u5پO Y@V-VE-:*NG'KACp u:R'}"ѝld4 YÙMx ڵځ9 :Q~;q;wQ0n,H|s qBCɛK YS3qğ`Nj,#@Ðe [r{|2l&AM?]б#l'@Ðe@ H*yr͛s +'Fmh̴` X"P8vㆮ~9rXfڦQ#[ 0d+~&NA <<}fΜiPune\0HA3$Yۇ^zҥKzjڤ_yĦNr4 SVԔ̊#tD XGX&,7jMJFqm]2uN IZfQkwAgY|^636 ڵùshT2>QgI* \+WƏX E O?A)A]IQ d+Wȑͽ{n4zٳgğO-/C2:AUժU31 e˖ծWXA)?R   jϞ=q1]7PmРA8q"\4 X <%PmҤI!!DGGԒ]P/_ڵk~tX/-[D`B/Ϲ`:t(X]`fHIB#F`ɒ%& ՚4i-^+Wܓ}+#@`e@Zlڴ ~ɚPMu%m.6#@`{eGaݺu&4µ L]jeϜ(UVRJ&FS[qF]g-ctzPm׮]&B5l1g@VN@-T3gP(<3P\f?[ O~< ~ ,DO3)AI 22W}kVfMmZ:u229eeh@8{( [: Pmܸq6lTH CrdOF $$/[֙,TkܸJB5 +lT!3i(_ գtusC~ñt8.TөБ4 0$`=&㯽M4%|0x<˹\l @Ð H BH`?S׽2 aH+1'l&pm,19lIoÐ+O^^@Z 0Ó@6Ŷ#22Bע`b=l"iA!@Ðz| r\pFOuxz~WݟH/$[VL|8b2JW3j[%@`%|=sXX޼}oL! @ÐT' @B9Pj'ӫT:b$d4 Of$e[vah֦3yZ-'D`˥ϼ PSpxo&:mB5LyAI!32nHɛÅj O!2FHPm!/hnGp ^d%ʹH@jkB5"̒ Y Vޗ/-Tk! B5k-v DjO_/ƦU.QH 0XrY^Ux{{c/[Qxq+V NNNٮǏ[0ٮ Z4 V[1e?g zf8y,tܸYA%ll̙c H CxxHl 9sL$@)Cxx3 D3s.npW1Q =K!WY? @a:L) NYfB5P] D uxB Nb($`ؕdɥg%H~▯ s㑟E2247Oq[T!/2&&GgW>W"ExUyK Ar3ꣻ7hݽuiQaxp‚"6:Eו hT '+{O!&Jn&<ݹ +_ܹt\{+9r@u99£lu@н%* C-1#$ Ő$zf7@B\p)1N"i]M-']'81{C>=$7wO-=wTșJp[nP s) 8%DUԏcbpvˍ- \tf7]㺛wB%*K;Kiϒ3O A2%*L SμZJg s+*_I ԟqɝa!uъdP.ܻvZ)]e_.I^Bi!RGX鎖15`]rǏcӓ%L'1LG2t-)&-c ~wDɀoTKf8Et# j!W몊G[ڸ*HI "PGtRZ. !3,[S)VެDEF$uuPNt$Lq𪀐wdh\e*툐̭ ~WEty[Iݻuf84;p[6cHu?>/ gŠKA}4cf(Tt!3KjyGi*gi5E|jZIB!s#@`n%bcOf( JFJVw],Tx[ByOL]x.Z>]2L ѺsTe,ɞ..ڊkGw"WOp֦zU{NNjs0 /=C8/Rzt;n,(לp̙>)Xej iB L=S@ކɴX iƷ}E>uI2% %#VIgDb0_{ʭq$)gH20 %`W%u% , @Ð XK*-J$@Y@! 3  $|Ҳ]D,)[tt4|}}۷o={cZh`m m{,?NŃ{~.CP j(P$`hl'`-wYfϏsGi$14cp"PzܪSJw79sN>o-aR<߹uo\K2e@mGOeJҷGA>[֮U|5h7^UU`Q/y ʩcC)$@ 0$$k%.lX[׭6uTR @SW_ܭ쌷z}l$h20'3mӺi:&:H DHaI>-&jWLBEM_n % &@`ÅoYW׾? AzVr΃wU7t?ciMIaH }͘]bq8A-m|<y7 @0Cg#o`ҹ;kYQ=}Z ^F4 X)KKxX\pFϧP~mw0\\\u:HG!}t&Ej_b刑Ek*]}GLFيU ^& 4 d<J{]~h׵L;͡A$qh2%c 풙سuIkCPx ^ d,Ij$>z3'd X L#@ÐihqZ:+fsRk'`7kW?$@YG!X3xj .b)JAQjM"F4 >wH+u=hvo^8:8t dns%ssxrUkI+aKkB$`ḥZ#W2{z>]䰜h޾ T  @``Zܻ &&ۨ)<^6+d   @``UZJWў-͗-o.b7jBH0_XF>״]P/{\χڴE{3SS̗ EiV(]Kﰉ\G ya0.>)1uo=prr 04 _FfaxX()ojk 3eM$`Ah,Ia 匿NQh($@I2-۴~>V.C[`,b  #@`yemZ ~ yG#+ ^&p4 ^Y+Wлwo޽$Ư{F"W& l4 ]~}tt4̙ & 謄ELA^aI Cp7T;={ĉj@йGprv .4 UMla1~x̝;䬄ڵkcDnȌ̜yez;v@ժU1k,(.3f#GPVTi d 9%!C믿6QW^ŋQ J0 rl1Xy?){k֬AJLB“> XLSׯo߾ؾ}I.]`(X?/Hl[ SZNcbb0oy6ѣz.ԁbʔ)ș3O aĉ1sLEk^6^=``o {Ѷ|S;Ç::H4C 6 +V0a&MtR+Wğ$@$` g +)F˖-6£QfVH Ő P+ʛ7o?֭[MTر#>sxzzH"CRT,Oh"TR(/^6mjA(XXR]Fl1d#H̙3ի:Gggg~aڴiȝ;O Cj(a,9Zfʕ+kc 52xHD!M#G0z0\|EW Fȑ# xZ4 OK.  ¬ Sݪ5xs=fx H/>`=shѠ ֬V7 r8MO"U ` f+-c)xr]^ @z 0`&=8V ((HOPB7}"^mJH2S2RrOwex[VMA[9q,rͣA$@M Ri*VKĊyp爌ԳWLiL?oA$@E Cf)dn!a =K3RbL3ZjpkΞ:0b^ˆO=5~0~h--6k:ԍ5ĹPT6 @vàV!f|1-ڵȻ|1p̶ ZGPQd+SotEǮ0sNJU ;Y8f -,B0vgxcTq @dHWw&oΞ-\><u'__ZH׵'CÒV?1t>U,)ye$Od7G($I$@A CZ %>jիaNU'`<u'~UfC>x8{ZD)wv7) E+qNݺjod+"W^oujF<~8sV- 7]]]QTIoTճoM$@J C 9(TKXuL=$U`ݨP̫8J)E_o:[:]l=h -U8A3PV =a'pTBoAcdk/vJ+-"S^[sWV % 3^}ӡ宭;Ee@z4܋D=tr=4 ߯]hiz- 1i˭k7QZq1W/!00Pj%k Hb,.:3ЏKbi,+???i1QXpkf+pc&j)_ n5oʘ$ 'iou暈1|lMwea ЂK/~Gُ/U~t %Ȑ$^ڌ~]?@gɊٱs.ʪ_ܩsЩi+ C/fR%Jt4vH4jx,' '{\r[o|Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrssUUE@PE@P 'ꠊ"(`7("VTPE@E@P|2*"(߀"(OPXuPE@Pe0PE@ `|(" F"(>A@O`AE@Po@PE'( :"(2 ("e0>UUE@PE@P 'ꠊ"(`7("VTPE@E@P|2*"(߀"(OPXuPE@Pe0PE@ !>U JΞ=KkO81uؑ6nH[nuڦJ*TL:|0-[̮M @vYfݻի7o^[.5hЀmF֭>(!\^C# &޼)Rp 'OZCg͚*)SkҸqzTvm)8oߦ=zн{uTfMz2h >SZ޽{/e'P/O׭#`()^F`ĈʬO##Xٳg7Vws wXsVDE[bʕ-["߿Olkzј1cYW.0Z͛g;mb :tׯ/0yfھ};AJB;wRn襗^5}嗴zjq2d0#Gh˔*U*1?3TdIi1cF߮eZ*xalGY3`pi~c߾} /x̸ aܹsMZsl,kno%ҦwI&A^{ͮ.Rߧz`iV6*{ٵen]\5(Db_+NիCƍ)?]veo`I(D_dѣFi[sZj+W4`xusĒ&M*ul~fΜ)lْuI BYl}Qz͛TN L4nKG|#p$Ӱ4$u:Lꫯ&MXlõ@.D/]sڴicg[ dԼysf̘a7nܘ!Z8]m7(E J+NXpvͿQ? 6[mcaAm5ʨQUx6 ~ͮj*'`q6=5sc;45={5 r0 :q Ѥv0sjQ.Y5f]ۢEZ1gJs8RLq=Wb2ؠ}Dm?W\ڳzx6zC2H/K~K}Ϝ]w=V`bJ@݄>vCRL8R!a2"#6{<,`50@`sH I©eOP" ),Z*1U! Fm+@dTE- bN:E8z`(yž1 lk 7a(Q# &j|6H22@cdɒ=ChȂlE#x6VE@pSE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@e0E@PE@Hi;E@PP\XPE]SE@`0ϧB QDht-}6}RV`A;wGnKRܹ)Yd2Dž _y[jEG?N5ZjE@vLBityf˖~i9r]7OƍG*8qB̓(_|SO?`MG /@%K@ K/^;VR!TR*wlgyF2e 8qbzgiڴit=khH3ݻVWv%d[ysZT:Uz Z\o;Fc;c/\ΝNNMf(@t2&osW_9e@#0 ]d֯_Oo&ߟZhA[nnݚ~wڵ+͛Wڴi# .t:Mԩe˖4i$"uh")۳g/^\WZEC #FPsÿz*߿T":uJ}wo[cA GQ}TUgϦ[Y//4ywrgT, '͘KT秦6QQ(Y /ovTUe>(0n_6 \ї_~iAIgϞ_|! E~;lذ!Rjh˖-|riذaԳgO:t萨o5 )fʹw^ LrhĉL۶mO>TtizwVUX1a. aSzפ$ab߇!!_:@aw7Ol)1osU)2gvڼ0<%Ji*q@H\ORH!t1 /ȃJW͙3*wƍ)eByGYfThQ0`0OѣptaSA]X駟,H3(/Q9c4HYt`;+U=ƍ ~KضwJ8L8 ,fgMJNVIgitu;w6ϝw^zṉ(l>*ѣfM͛TuXT(C`q$0 [J4)?tWa^:TT 8J*eu͒% ۗ4h@p34($ȓ'@#.|;+mk[ڵHc;;vVf'}1Kge7 wߥi:*ܲe򀭻`S0#sժ ̶5k cX͒5fY^)%Jl¿  wuiZ sd$矴OCVyBx-,=7b|yT[7_$ӳJ793Ѝxub0]܉g͚e  j`4QNq޶m5o6Wo矷sv-u&>-ӳ=vԶٱcH*%W{Lᾐ:,d\ٮ93:M-iRmkIp毿(7O̭(K%ʔ$VҰ fJC)'Ӳ};]l(r 磒" P#ٖC:hqB= {mezz.: 0`]6 bLll`U>/'P'j(F`WVvVdEX8f5Znu*(fs(#ύ-cK藛O`qǎI3g(ը{L>`Z~PBw sCVS'j#& pǎNS\ox͓2޶8d5rĬ g̘1"[ v_7QsOrcnz9[0&MXLCIP=ܫW/1c +M$ԘL,o!'ԥ^v|@7H8w1¥ D3z$@)@RqFN j(YD,:Xe.AJa:` ;3809rH~Ipđ *]~=ҘʰX1_~$n8?$@{LOƷߖ=Çw5έZ%sKm sѩSʾ} s-~h{>3kVcRHqqFiAܹv͘-7xpoI[XB68F[z{IT¼fy˖ƤD'NXezx`<0C*2GrV5C8Tf֭['6 H:J-wDxaY%}26xWcl8gf 95;ed70V.cUiܞ=KK`W؞ތgUcgl`EY :ΞI} 0Hi!ᑶ >Kfh~(qwmi3;:$X<_!Z0u4&2InP.DzK'.~sA>a@E/1%v𠨨P)=lIy['Oc](-3)p++f~+^G@!u= nԮ[j"}3l4f '_! Ud+*s-?6eAXrA2ؠ}A@%wP6"(#ǐiE@PwN/m(Fo 2c=*$x9b{lMJ0 5-ȋH:sLɪՅ)D@L,;`9dI&_Q; LIH,axE!fMN_d͛)s[!`l*xv933R!Ml-9m AC4XPYyn!=F|dѶݮg"~xStI"$TE^"(~2?)$E@P`]kPEP7E(@B@@LBz q|NP4KIw|&'J$9Щhg_2U;{ O;{5}挷xϝjD@L|s I8/W_RZ*EA۷|@:{>w].a::Wo/! Nm F@L|B Y (I}mܶxX'qINo'.Թ#1N;7ݣ=m(Q*ԽeoLu|̯t($UJ [ROYפ"}zҡo'^ٴ\}{SZ5ܺ{׮SҴ 8]X5k*}ܾMHWnHPeqU;n=F?F>~6FyGG uz gg(I~(3TT %=R)ϋɹ#B]"_C ~-е]iubY47zt3-F:B׶E)A&SfӚڭ]Ԥ)Tk'*+RypHQbfZ>AOQ,.`w(g7/NML'FN*M] MSe)sE@]W;q;[9OЦ2q$J-#)i,DT]si ]W,Rgi~|u5qҤrF}*1cz**7%(B~.-Gu U5ӭ'z `N:#!pΒ֐q.52UB9Z4#= #A@)ip!h:0vރ%;2.'4c={ʺo :oJ _Rl=0-a](K$'Ikߥ#\trHI:lcE PL@&]3RqD溵)-?my fp**Qo~#-ZAw#~d&㞡¤<+K?Lŧt!T8 Xgn>MM.=Җ.oPN/{6V`!p͛mzh@=+*ua[\p^ņkQ1?R(yΜظEECw%2%Cչ~+/_R#ݻH-TY"$ s7ovl8WװŋwCoYyL.޻r.n=Q e0vGp=f%l!_dd:VD:){oXgQ:tͯQM5geyzα#Z5v< d.QM8^I5 5YRccǛMhctij:ӯRvv,:?wUl({|l؇6ҝ@@L,A}it?TdSK jֳ☎Rb2QE #O?DҥƍS~ZhA/"ϟ>ߋ֭[S*JQ15kȚ~wzDZxqL>"A`nʕ+iѢEg xw uуX$,p 6RHS6mߧӧӫJوkٳ(m ^ܱc:t #"S-[ʑ#ki;jբmۺlBիiΝV] ˗/?ϥlt!vfgpn͝;J,)("1 *:x {˖-nd7xO͛~(R1`ݻFXX3ϷdȐ!/"͚5YW^1Xeg 4ȸՆFF̙3{6=j\zU'Ol4i`p`ih֬j*6Zjeҥ=cĈڵk~Z,X m]1c F23V#cƌ>|`ۡCcΜ9Rmf4hxG f2VQ"@>/v`Μ9c*Tȸv횬yԩ`t钜+W/y׭cW08M1KX`sv&M2J*e7Fǎ߱L1XUh(PԩggL6`ۑ1ay`-xe|Wcܾ}[ѣ0ܡC>`޻w%MuvL(q@PȢ YʠbŊQ4i)K0ƌF|MVsYʗ/_tCSI}MXrp'dA,;Lz饗%,QAAfkm7rHڸqvp@8q؉fJujկ__իGǏ\]~q=5k֤NXjU\a7tR۷^{5u:"hKȑ#-|X-Sb5Hlr#d˃" *ȝ;7_arPJNj[=$ ڵuvryzhӦMJoVf`<[n!A4mn-W_}%̃Ut FpXVڱpr1̵8:ʢ+VPʕUaqKKi"a#܏ׯ[۵k1؆Bl@=pBʕ+U *8Djg>}fTR%9E%o<%R-!V_l09< }o0S#>m 3f;i-c;İ?Mm%G`gWbs`]h18r3f32c UcΝ;Xnđ3S,Y_~L4.Z(yA>QF0f;R~p,vzzVN۠]!b`v ؄Tv RȴرʘQqc\4Ů4vXqB駟E a! &yC߿?A%UD jذa4=*E+ c JTk"6AgvZl)ve._9$Hv )%E@Hƽ5]n4&.xĭq3ÁܮE " &[2x-Y8ÀxaqƆ୆@O3կQX! &V=|]=eA &gTNᖿƼřSq.\Á;w*UـrE  κAX}`r'IIb)e?9rR6 `::iffsJ[.oF9sq|u]bJz)R YK *AxU[NIP`08J;T_P]6WfPvgN)S';ƌѰ[8&g 9yavB83&Ѯyin4?؂)pే 1s4=\iOA`Q/feTC Hri{S`uOyyfy3Ra*?`[q`s suq8=|gqMxKlZ0d"@@AN$ EnfV-DVX!46͛iaŊl3 DGUСR5$d*yöC-kRs:#`2%Iמ166]]0֮M8So#*Ӽ\gXZ~HĕhH氝i+P*{ ݞ/$΀Ix_M"َql4;t`+qX؀@`>xWL0|mӠ}e68r,9X}4_ݳ1s+L77a~ۇRbƱcmL8 ~?``ނ w)L\p`iJAl7JærC\GQ(ZMIΏϦw5ۤwHݔdɌM2e+78] =rO|Flr~pX9ԫ;~1%ujcsϞR楗鼩ح˗sMMֱݍ{VcKG&N?r4v (V˷,E"$,bK,yb;?6fDSjbOU6;S$bT2P+1{fƓ8µ,m긛0vew#2C_`FxuH͓e(e[r,#cN[2W\ef3OXτm/"lِ'S5c gtm@" 7+5{}O\YR0:[8I)ތ 2RҁXHf,MV~/|2U RR 8mgd@Hۆ F{ضX?,TW#>s@.]"H ;55(SfDト?*qbFaFs@|ಷtqyH"±87yef{ҘcfNU:j/O5$d-*3h?&jmc,T`grI١Ak )7/l !o|`9dy ~9n Q@Uڗ^Hzf2)y+0x=`wCNV[ -fv|1vޚkH>=N CTf`\;o81dh^pǑ{ Yfhc'Sl0LH׫kU qS-45)* $ 067$Ҳ@udyI{ 3-7L'&G'45&{c  R`0"8s_k1@A@L)]g psûy|i`8ժU$.T]5dž ` 0H79#8bEP7Ae[ I' >R # &guaӐ1iȡBNlG5`.59pFN0eJ!O VGIH({=D)p@ '=%2ct8+%E "0"^]_e vQĉ$LCO"P ƏO_}}XIP@B@-+FT+{U+)"((;u7F)KfE F*@iKqLKߑ:(! = `F?#I*Ν+kZpVMAp{A2d 3됊@P;|[M&uTq%9g7q=o1ʔ)#嬶vlHC5}hЀ%㜤- Ьcg+V0c4o`f52diiQT)9>xEfcp{n(D@%8cO61M_x'R>⇸ҙX"-?UVZD O)iPw U@ZEAvfddj-[]vy6iȑqF4hܹSa F?Ω[()q c8`bMͼ4S6m5aY`aID\mC0W^б;ֵoߞz-i;z8&`m&AãdfK0{W?4[9*O6co*Tm]fR6[j߶[)SN:$HykjO ̮dɒ$ljFox3>|8UX>13-p+hѶ$4أLRc;s$8  B@L\!x SNw}GcƌlemN<)ð0(Q6lhUD@m0Q£޽{%kH%K\2ZJ0BR/ 8!OGA 8yq$s gb,H HnB,Rl@̠K9*W,lFAvda5 nR9\9]ҹ)!ArM)lׯכP=F47?MȶCBĮD$*GZudO^:b*[rrg cx6 fX0/iԹ7籔ѵye0QLƍ#x{ݸqC$$DN o38FYF/%;5d2NxS,k~H$d˝5خvm19Ƽf͒QuFZOXs2`$W#q_TQ˗YHxs |OPW-21_"302bc(<(396B_r![> 1"a3+gk@ a`<8?8Abcs )M0A#}0\IUrAE\)e'04fϞ=-, x? v0޺4pkp\mJ<MWkp<g%=K "5O"~ ;+l2dY J07oP=!;/$e1 l`ڛg2;c.(w(H>жyi%$M&vf"c% `'fIDATӫٿ?${AϞ=eq@? /)痤SP =ڵk]U's$*$仫 nJ1C@Lp^)B%'q`T\9I| 08$(~P ƏX\/sBd"4)ye0RGO}U!XK,.*'GA/MRTZ5.9- VrH0f>2_/9 )g fV:.TdG$܄1cDJc0ҔӅ27fd0V2HMxI7Jq2Yg?G;m0Hm IFBAP#شS! Əol0`T믿4iH0XS?:s &np,U]vM6Belvϰ{,FkNG@1 e0u?VS }0 Z J2#:c=P=_ (|-Jנԁe0~zc,wm06m"VYzuʚ5 u`V_T{+">%:ْ%KdgM|w% vT }Ue01=1$9s0lM]#۷o)e|~A02 A~```GM4;vHIC0x ޏ_tKSBZ(; fgI6c0KJ?^.M 6 X+|аaèp~b]'(-mߵg}.\ .gΜ!7+KSдK@!. \a~~bC bŊz矧*eϘÇbSL Yfus׬YCUT[VVM`6mJ ̤iRvdf/eFHo%! {XH@PH0$~B5nݺ"Ut)ٳ;wnz<ₔxee0TG/_QbŜ ץKcǎTNY+TR4tPo߾"aGHH=ԩS֕SO?(ٵkW￷[·SNtUIvٿI^ v\#G$ϰɓ'&dܹD^ZjРlBkݻ;[*NJգ8 i~m$O<#! #q "o J(azu;QɌɓ'jעE r>|cҥGk6/uEy+b#EѣG\ʕ+wsX2^z%M6͙3H>vZk]C q={V\ʕ+n$M`gFl)S8ǎ3%JdiY4o(Zh"村YbvZ Yd!$Ďh[BKRehϜ93S 4 TV[ :z)6m12Δ)uARƍe;wJ<͉'({r=@lٲTV-٠RJE45ŋ89rU RR*Aa)ӧa-ZXpizҥKgCx+rO0g,[fVjUiR0g}\!{ ѣI&Rs ɤج!*nߑ EE  V'0Gnɒ%srUT*,>"V#2:y3g6~_2hP-D eʔ.$l'my3nu%dAO~`0).J@BD 6K71. [6ci9S>ؔiӦhwR?sNaٺFE#x66f޼ylVZ%ܠ)W\]=~~?%"diP e@R?}4e͚#-oS7۷o۩Xb>}X_$Ҫ܂, p ͓'ON}d>>hxlٲTbÇX4_q /_ȴaA<8&MJ3f̐5x1C@NvڒqW+WaN`dB̺vJ9~oI?F,%E ^`ۍdW^{Ge ĉ 5;5%饗6mڴ1ڵk',g|ݻw fƧ~j-7 1駟6!i- f0r_ӦMW^5Am۶2 fɓ'(-Uo!/^4jL>];vhpqYL Ҍ{Jξt@E5AzZ@1C"Eos0k+tUy@/ܤwUkb{?FE"qa&=S̀a.Rl"H,B;c 5=?:~ mYs5Mʞ(;a`~g 9aОPYӮȾPf.uh0^Y{h@pÏPo˄Ƒ21# iҤI2UzubiFjkԨQԧOI6GmGX/W/p`;y/uV9CJ*K^vDt͞)NU-݋<@kNUTyA9nҮ(oQZP2yow[9ٳũV4pL#yGicNx۟:uj]dmql(\!$to/CVgϞ-lF>[f7kcUmذ*<]9`bv;aE jP֭H7۷?DF=Ǟ*$],9&8W(] I{^=[.PZ9ݻV/:FW[L%CLl!=aϾ+1!'}i -{א2eMeͣoBj]|CaþxxU\YvRfa// iQs c  R L !l6#F Oz! # -y6‹[ٰi69sf@ ,\P.>PA@h=z،J$q71Fgؠi٫|Nϟ3ؘn X8c ;+ﴛk4I/IDTYAzJ>@ 8:#CPBi!8Tœ(UfOtC…#]?o{Yt,E  ` t#>:>$d?FSAmDɒ'j hHU4lJ3zh|'O'y.']u64?"F:q(UW™pa\>4\tn\C%g+vѸ ڴUlwɜuNmamzi=`<:fP3ܴW Qـ%S=wa.0R%0 @w<Μ=h+x߬}qj߭cߥsGX2IBr)ChkR{`lvu[V;<<f=<ǷmmmBɰ-{=:"Pݑ``7F vf e'"xw.yB6PNPfv28* y|iYw_#捇KwnߧdRO*m S{&*6!1MɌzgC;?^H?({+gj5-d;TR lKݬ:7>ՀT<@M^Ҷs):α љcץi(3{]|^k> jأY׵(OA}AgLIo<^ࢌ~0ه؛lY3Ȟ;5Jvqڹ=pY<|IfHUٳd:u qOE7% ~"v*\'MvwH\8NYsp6ۗ$pI>9`;Z%S_thejtzoXm魛>ࠚ;y81BzuX$o?ZffzŘo]{L4f8V?*߯[: ]' ;ySzq C}C5g*j#N}]EeR M \pΘ w:PVL/Nf;QL):rw[J,{vY.F+#%a[hlSI!3ojbIO# #u␇(<$ں#$BO +S5%8 eOr|'uأ{ ^xwI gSR8.*:|䩫X;7}c7hYHh@cl,4j]$Iם 1PoF7Xe7%[R4pIH}QaiNk919l{C X~q=?_p Lȱ7iԼtmjպj_u+2R,ҤO&XI>*qpW(%-WN˅\rE@P'iiu02WF2$A^KT 9\r~uq/Sa0k^2d\4D8}s괘qv_ie2,ѿ|8tzA5$xRFG`CHE A :]R*Y.+爳w0 lcsPCvl p `m%{4Ü.ܭa,<ء$m>Q<'㭙7:#;^_H4LC8-Ax fQ fa1w]TNnW8ﭳWbf`O*&s.}Xnt=`0F#rb+:O_n>QޥSHK*̖V-<*s|3^ĽXNj+f&?+a_<)ϋ虪S$swV%:rM7e3=ɻ>ޮ8{Ŕ#!O^7Se 4+Lv]JSw6!x*;"olQ]ϟI?l>iU^7 xec6=N[)ض.fTۺ8S(C?r:q8]`e#5ø?J3=^:msV SvP;1[TuY>]?"o7F {alʕ`>_\)fZ~8Ryauήoͣ5){8H٘U8rs v<NQ]U; tdgrLj[LI$vE?rꎉ#;jc- '"oz/U^kLWt2rou|@r^!m$-sd!oȟ%b6PˁgaV/:sU%0"Ա@t^S2(.k>1j"y`] ZQԠL64;K.q@b-йeL0dg!ZۖLF8rWp=lzZ"TEuxڵdَvnF+ZHAӶP:#26rՂ%bΊO /Muc̆ckHˑ0oX~:<oPST]M &&i@^!ۦtA)g8qb)aiܐjTTfVih;~0$j=Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrssb^>'pB|~ԨQ53g/N>З/լwyֹ?u6@.8fJ:c9ƌJ+<g{*{gdr}*Y/0ET.Y^t<믿&9cƌ9rZ΋tyݧUVu֙~2d_p裏o^U^ƍ 8oqxC: 1$ˢAmvnOθM_Z,3=>5>,1ݚ"㭪,l)C-Y.Ru^k.G_|q{M6kZ);zSe佦ӳgO/=PߡC=[o=/f6nPVҝoӦM(}vuW裏(T0+)-TSȟ~,g}|۶mC6xc/BHe_O?]c5~]tЧ^_z$vSG8rM}Fo9uh9ڞ$<g;v޽%J~G:p\u^87϶TJv^ F #Eίt)&^}^ҷ1bDh(#WTG^z`JGN)-첩ݺuo7lqs=SױF$''[lqGu5zTh{u <s{5wc!L\!I0vSA8ne#C?[$ǪV[mHepM;=2yq]d#J]#~T g]a|$P/}+vCk=r9SzdB_{k5_uC=To:%HFOdT }}:pz6+)aQoOC;vl/yYq}'_0K2t-=/c$f\:fLo߸EJ@Ę󅴛 őkt [ySxdcb"fn^y$Ng2~Igu== *vO:5%Jw]wZ}=|t%7 ۸IBx ĘS.OOL%p'Uةϱ] eO:${g?$<8B5euz.YGm T\!œVo_HO|5u0 :/ x,HuO?Èrva$aG*q9R܈&Ms` FNa<$oV\r(ۍëD:N_Qߎl1"D+!Ҁ)xK "\s5^Q)$\?$1I[2hu"ˎt;pqk*zཐOYu$!7&.㹑//H$rZF.Pepswyg.\1pl׮]H'ri,3J"sReD?#0\gaj5^ѕ'c0ђK.nbH.$z+!1wyneq2N8ZW]UAuM몧X _} U#m{#%m|+d\ .vZ=WwpI%xqK%*6I&Lj2'7mce? ~WL202L1I0$mB%YyX xj!@^80I~T}x"FaӐ7V6'`%w}=(M=4 +B^t38fk?HyǶ'?z%XAhO^öT3!4EQI a C^< @ ޣgE`BD2csa4;4t^hT"4hP*])j -jqa(.6 A<6>x$xCF"$?w21՗b\@S-;~5^<]آu*1ங\[qctbI6#$H/Y߿X Wl7ۡo'GS B7 ]-@DKc!PZ->g$3" Q ACJ0/*֍v"|& )TPrhF xu?sR%ಈ4>79;Y|@ !Bt)(l)"@ 㫌Qo2)l䋀1|!`T(CЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/E!PCЁf!/EW}U:S8&L( z DsiƔ)S)Zh>{v{[s5ݩN+nݺ McVXSO=[l1wf6(8 uY'eؤ?vl{Hgv۹?}qe),= 7$piE(: g! sų3;Q `\sҥK#p?+쮽9q6^`K,'M74\?W_umڴɹj.`Ϟn.Kuq+pV[uKkk= KGL7r_ynF9sܠsp EF]vVݻO?4lpY:6xcʅ|-nmMJm*.2fJ ;Rn6qcbRh^#nͭunF =\7~:zTCuk-7ܜiܼьɓ]+Ie7[; <ȌXnrt/BR_ǎC_ ۶moznFww4G׿})hvgy5k>sתU+w衇Ɋ.\۴wqOr˹O>r-nUWu]w5p'v1S1rn#e5KhO>wn_Vc^+?$lӳ1AF[=kh<㖑7QVf{Ku|}#s_;]-гv-+B$t =|릶LBF?Kޅu臜y{ ~쳂2oPG\c?i'rV|t(s~YϗĤaJ}Կ2x=~v;Ｓ~ԽƍSRxC9P/R!!H(wI?l%UO(+~8&f[zȏ5*uڱ;Nse'Ǥs;w iӦ]kՌ^*~٩i3u>|e+}ku 7O=5Tc߅G45]xa8>/w?T|e1z}񟥱yLĵ|VQ<?b/t?*x>vKK2KG}'vyme$ u1<,n/wk_V.[lGMsEn%}|5І0ezMNng̘sfv_>Bac䯾rܳ1n]{!*:^zI5y=zZ3<)/E0~"Q#nf/%/ԕoݵn:a|^x!Y4e/b0駟^:n^IfqM8-y|m@/0RcAp3 111 =k袩Y8Ll,g3J<1 ̰ uZc fVV7l}o}Je7U?j^"T=orݲ$Aj⢋. ^#sKS׺N&$sJu0vaFE4M?ꨣjT+0Ll]|lWT41T8j( q8hJC&Oj0= 1hzNzMÃڃ+:~pY=lgAa/T,SǍsJ/6-⊵DtPl}h#~}s:RPL*X}/n~ ` sraTҏi{](7E(/??k>l\RD* 5.mn5}sRӸOkX5us.`AYb¹io[+oiiIu#b_=#ý qGtYhw%Y#b\N2͐Noо#GMKjTӥHm &rq-0JC2_P{뭷bZ&c.}(/3g:wYdˇYA>Ľ ^ ЌT-a MSy.4JnN4 :op}8cU&n˚$ݤ*{y$m,׽jӄ^ WW<[[/y0˥R&,^/짙t|U c .x?x7R0?e0=]X7XY  孷k7LA.A|g[n ǣN #'\;>k.˱$3"Ja}lÛezqM'^>ϯno$ONX9gNkwݕ#P+9[ SͿG҃.52a„ZÄ2 %<[$u71wx׿(3Y>٘GQڳ}M<xɢVK$H3g:VNm7B&)U֒LJWhNtkl(l>}ލ2j__dLŘH$LDNz#i(Cw۪s+)育77 c)k+JEWZ0IQ-Audictk %Ǖ4^>ldye[iΤ!Ƴt`7ӦTvKR̪Z7Dg_v5z5LwNkKE:Y_T@ !mzP KmaM;+4&H Ut񥑪FSE?\{yҠ#ĒMk>U6D".O>zAG2J0K=TlF "JnvGL<5n@0dq&40~v %.?HaDWx,-F' :3R],Fp3^$0=\ȉpp*>,OR"dti!捞6@>wKƘFr+}Foy9I%H_(,^;pV0~_NjQ"@(:Q_--(얖iQ9*^ݘ$~s#i3H0B'I7&˓2sk@\cl=1]e c㴍2;&S5F{힆!P949^9YK C,ʮC[k;6IjsAӛd 62 F/'Jz^*M93@²j-& II"@2$;`H@7تDѨ,T3ȇ*dkSmCock_(L?n|-^ߔʕL1RI6`>\XGz|!EIrDٌ֤dz2&*oi@]gǫ T-ْuUWOgoV-5!O~YhUB.Q",xZ BBy1˱d@=hG)ktea̔57V./o\-} ʩuiW$o˶l崸-kR;ss[W=˂)ͨ:ēHy0+_{po$=,3%2=D>wyע^p>KwX L)ST>N+W^Fy ?%S (ci1nU ,ԭaIܞVZZsL֤,Lu留0ܟ}Ջfu믿|H|%wD/+cf7-DmЕf4Ťh'a'iZ)LZzazR/SYnө}֩A4UZIJ(X8C4&[_d9 (v*Sߎ;Aqk9PYa{w 8/V[-`B=MގP}Ջ#FlO!!NWٍ-aʪrob.HrC>Fϭ:;zlѕ;:|Nfn_de(VbZa\Pà{''wX=3GC>l5s#G&5bƻ:ȡ*S$VԎ.SԏQ +Zi_AY\kӤ=G 8Ś8;ae|BI6U$V^@Y$-scK(2j~U2kZWIى _X&  A%Mz0^/D[$,t"5kXbDBrh!h$YQR‰/|ʑtaJӽg!;SN9%HUF R õK|:r#IX2" N[oC&V 1MjIJ\@ZFerI7ˑ%%8 6!2KŅw9O =H6D3$^HFJeMY!JoK[^~S:HYvֽd={ } 8pYE:׬Xg7 C J)ųL4M֚eBNxqC ɸ$`;DCz }b'{]Xu˯":t`)7`XTKғjHߩS''bZ/eK北rL|I/B ]Gxv< ^)҃{Ws諆ß|^O0/hrT@ۑmԉt"Tg;Y&E0FQ-VTdr.e$L?Ro,畍vEwy3Cu.5K% S/tJ56H,;.BDԑގnleȌQeF"z]sf!`T7rOvS 鿵Y&Vu#_*(ZW{ZӘy]H9C:^_R&#T)ѥY ChDwDf)vQd$t1f^gc3@?_JRkz=R'+hoɻ5VUyWXe ㎈ 7M5+](na,% VWu0nCH} v_i0aT&}UVY%ѧJg9ۃ;"4wGz|HInϟ1M/dVC ^|"ց@b #tȹܓʥh23R+E~h=?.ˍ Cz1E& no}ODPE) |'6M&MtLzSz6]$R\yIbN#_&Lp{M5}>w.پVyB͊+ O=T56CaXN S@|%38#$KsblR# %RiC|ERcׯ_oTpӧ#1T=$h:VF(sH,jNɄIL`}#<2X$i)set 4 ײ/drU*x^z!0 !Q'.y%R~!ǚ+ѸD ~H C֗1m1c߹sgg^ꎐgϞ 酉x tWlo{.M0`@G.l1PjgŴCpq+^ ZK+ Z;py8Ldb!BtO?R*eJhWL *!emܧVҷyBY?rLZ`1p\3+@;-l/\=ʧyIy_~ 1r :|9T )ӂ!yYCjϦཁjW^ )fә&7/4Q蚑я#~瞐2R)$t$d-Y6\YzK0m#E2ĽV]uՐ-'k,@y"4b:1nT,2d}\g0I;}iHhR/%t`V`]*XGZn-lS ! 7.0b6ɨxa*^Ͷ& GP/0G=ݔ .YJ J/ 1^0ꪫ9P|Nj/ K SWv #E"0pL.#^O7ǛB JɜNar$Y.R8M|r;%@ZF$HŌ: & 9,fm;ydUizip @⦥; v Q/Ðjiy1$Py!%)2+20"`Ƽ7ryeZ5Sٺ>mR:ͼLCNd}ILI"f]T&DçKqS|$ї%.Iԗ,mxhC叫!.}YĖHF@ˆcL B1iciCT(3/;B,,f$$(4PCeQYQuҮX6h`F>lL/D̤|\DVfVf6Bb(_&>yqvcqd)ͽ">)TRpcD:is2 AҨ!1@0C!vi'aS `0"(P*ڨ-Ȅf%^d>)1_| Co]Xb%`b!2r_IX~rIo/fVW=4\.%~U|Q ZtQ#[1^7=qdhTHHPg;y:Pu=DT!ѧ%d}6sv%fF@,ܦ~ ṶPL^am'\?1Ə?>Gy6XU#TV) )/v X}UX;®a"_H0(YW|!&)[)vC!nI}!].$") BH<1Hb.dU_jAB.`D !f:6J<~Io/T1v㝒$f@=v "#^!dI]5mRÄKW@W{ O(p9ׂ !L_|ޚTTLؽIT(!|E~qBH ү7N=TpX:xҐ\YJȻ.fBe 1 +޿{mهW}9דK^v [s6~e"`* ~4$HrL#%lBkV!#y3뫯N$:R8)F³xt,I&ol9գ^Agdh~ph8$P F ̒ !U#IJ:*Crl]=q~:s=RA]6mF ?beYXEf; 8/fN.t` 0]o }/:L9AjXIj1 X4Q^"&I:Wl'.z$&y ,[X&j ?[cbi"4[zq9VEBdbA$Nu + kTK cϖӛdMOxl̄u1c:Xع{3rSl'FeHs5)y\OaTcPWcbM cMkjwKaF1Ƒo.B"% 6,H丵AH^)-7F p(<_sS6[α1FQ`4M'N+l裴!:.H[@H̀`̆Pľ5_`18FԘs=}5RAv5vv@2U֪' Ջu?΂T^^$^ ;kѐ[%~e B 0eᔏ 'ۇ<qXcl$G:ZEבg\~Onpᆜ;<y!1*Ky49%cL7S_[1 m_X.&M6)SN n >"MVAP!3G2E<=72uj5=)=Oyz0ʢ&99 i:ח܏$p2q; f3.kѧ"οTcݱo40Dƍ"D/}wt˹4k)EF!PiFL~koH 4=./ C0 _p;)J%" |!д0Kz]\ qӻ^zfB )!`T7&WT#2dH~.+l9@0 TY/^MU oKN`ˡ!uٵ!40him BEB JC9]@6E$}D%!t0K#Dnb$IAH7|s*V1:;O~־Zi~ j8bt7G͘[5^Cc + !!_`f7%b?9;07Ď4]LB/)DH(EP+䰬Z9]!ifmOL=kڷ?\iZ0 OY ɝ SJ !V  ЭIU1։LB/ᣀGM6>NK -wBPUC!恀IyOQr RK-%ՏY(w玕|LB/a$N;}ܫ`M"M[o/)څ_#C)#`*R1.:tBfHW^ye4#CoXǫI s1nĈ' Vՠ^5O*j/z3*Iy(`k|hcW\ayc^$tDl"`z#UC.;+4Q ʊ?^]i4.&?zj$aWvm9̇6wy9dB 7n[veݘ1c2c@Azava9W^}U{N8l=C-wYz`Cgne;oT4bQ!裏v;v 8,%=~Ϟ="L[4Cj +4~@0'~۵k>3׭[ %Ա^(5ѣGW6GVCsEz믃>u%t/kӦMRs|5 r7N!+)tO۷+ØyC@3Gz{H{6V[s C4F9zY%`:xo}n!`FI3&YSQY/ p/E:ZhQx%x%9_\rTnzgs1XM;.՟{#fb%IDAT!YmvDZ1JH:urzhX}eE |5Ƶ]lЩ Q x[m׮n>1H sϸ3pJn*)3^RՎWJPNB:?s|rsw|r { ^P]vYh.j0rri1J@Izlu+rC-%C߿k߭[BJ-5O]oI Mc7_ -H+v'.Ulp)ZٍPrQ]C7~rݶ|qǹ?6z[{J+[GR!8fZ'رu# Qú[$N"'iЌ 4GD*w3tǺ 5*l}CPid®ai ;`-ݷ[n9I'߽$*G=@ئ,\},uҐ!n~=SA[¹lSچ!@>\`zew$7p rGDY̺9.CtWZ ӢΟ嶎/A]ya7]UWigl"eMzF6lTѳ!plAGJ5jT8 O 1uI~k쑶!V43HAj?Pɠg?x@~ɀ3FuQU.O6υ}HDl.k1h}}nXS7P/ u"1vֽlN!>K'Kcg"7es0>80jSu%OH,x:1W<^ҙkJDאqaIVB T޺F^!%Jke=FE]4_B as]Fu$)RK27Kl=:kgYMy*J޳)m'3PD2{KbLV}V_}uԅ#CgULrьۯ!+eeQ+Kg]nBh1#ˢ# 'kȟ^EPt4RRzV!h7v=Z᳐T#^nrJ2TzdE,ޕr=zQ9Y:-IY *-e/A=Cc'Rr?]R'ysԅβ>$u;ǰN/K0bTe@B12@YY""#a旊B"Ƨ}T&xcH/fɠ}Ƨ.>T^6SkEmtױ.JkʰztBrLj zҺwjpʜȵ [Pڵ<~ $c"ɔ謣 O<{@F; |KwfytEmp$ l<%G7_ke  Fڌ^Dqv<^g@R2RS1§ߊ+V~pS燜yfs?xc;;?nW\?]ע7`@# ^O?V] o=e1G>ˋ&um|ߥl'ϟ}_}56q]xCYtSЫWNп=\3C,/> ׿( +' Y{#Gf=_Xip5~iz0 @"m-nEk+l?Mw6/7yDCpR%-h1 hֽ9} hlT8+U !@ny\NM!x-F{wRqqol"oyynjw11"*W yMf0)`y=z| F@SE 9 g(M?0ˏݱ^\<TۧMâxnļ .6 f@Y%tM bS"DKM@Q\h霤O|Xdla\p 6*Hya N0u X~UV(27]6ɕz!-~GuPH %6KΓ㕿fQy0*>,X!Wl5eFoQ0ҔHfHXt V^'$oZŠ|dehL2s%_?~q0\nֲM6h &3%] )ebbѾԂ/RV7ŘLCh>?yB31%:Lu!Q4bkт8La1$HU$QMJQ2-@tBY$M'}c/`!rx3ГJKNBiy, *(^p,sxG\޽ ƿ;Nq0 @ѥy]x͝wމKmz!#^ 5>0zI^y?nedMl8uba0qyu{1p\IV / A L^kV]u$=DO?Wv>ou\sMϋyJ"-bԩ[$۠uDzy-b-Zz餮42K+V3QZ ,<'i)L+~- ;"z'K.P_zav+kMKR_8jyrR ςR*Jjœ&IS)RY;}F~w\Zj/搎@G ?2*XOTeX$`'.PHktNT6FVbGt!0̝<)TB - +p>ϋC1/.UM !'12 C, 1EϽy9j.#^S.cu]TNSy}[.Z+S^8l㆘?#æT.$fl`Shny/&/ ,ZD8ԏTҷN+K z|/<ǀ ݯz裏jQNK+ݻC<9IF!xՀ@Y"E{5Le!sIES^p(QZLq}j\'; IB:';gڐmύE΍i7Mj1j|7X 1s-f`Jf*F1kAq(Q8ͬZ*w6f^=cj=1*8d AAx)c3Vi6YLB/С3g12bn2&i'I|Bt[MHVI `zLﾻ12m1#&aoW Q 2n&烖dLB/\nvrh^g=z\2HFI7&֢0 0r|$2f3dV0 D$2 &FI9.֪0 =rX?ԘyΐYACh&7.2eJYŠ*+wle!`z~x\5EYØyΐYACh &7Lsc)~m{/2nnX&8h?"uYĶ CB0Bﻏ?۷Rv0 @$:Owmڴ2 C20zq:thu>rH׶m,p5 `:jE9N3f;lIic2x`:}W]vi%l0 F$g[ozq]C0*ciCN>͘1#!PCO2)s1pݻ]C0*ӡO?:wvvӡW6Co^m̀1 ء&\Y CcscbG Ch4i>}$7kԢ?gl17m„zXC0ʍ@I)SܐSOuh>ϯzy#p/{vU Lʋ[_~;_{-il~vƏxJ 0]9c!`4oJ[7[k\ (_ ;\>p۷/VJնkW7oɊq7!gܬY[Th&ꮻW^q*?zϙ.w_~!?%e9j[JRe׾[7N;"ygފfLc7_ ~C+vⒻ2W=l4ލΗsu (m~ChceChY7skl?q[νI'"a ùIF=@ئiܰnpϯv>>|7i7CA&+Kb:;en&EjٿfK<'^-Ш{q0Hl>O/}pɮKoy&^xьC-4sŨЗYfc/FC|ϑ:A@ ɰ)2*z0&i~h $bȳ20@딌&CG}1KE3>pi|ǥiޫ8vr1*o7dfx~X4X}}o/S@ڲ㾥_}W}5AaE. i~2r?&JzwORvK/u)6`ww}W[Z݆@A]BQ_jsNqi,>U:qa2 5F:'NJ`"Wྗe%uOiRbP&WX/X0?!PiDwd>}MrϻV9LP^D\Bsps:wHnHs J+רߖȚku^>m>32cB7(Q*;~WyEMy ZC0[Or#=\<<*`wtg((y@% Ϯ\9xQQGaf1|pG;Qfm=W^AUg!yh112J$~뭷)S5yd{.ug}k:.ؠT35uڼ. 7d|Ŝ1!ƼptPa{챇 <[Z &lsĉgϞ^^j@G‚tM8 gCp6Aw_eU¶^*s^P^{eK+8믿>⛩X!C"OERBZ!a0+BqtH) ơJQٞ5 ܨQ"\裏:T{o2`F a` A9wĄ/d5Ly|P0셊)믿.5E ET8<$è^?xwT3L?$Mi+x^s"7ŰWn#w o1C9$\ۚ4(tZ*`ܙacaD JTF8lmK~k"u'g1Y9葶9qDbXʵw׿ֺ PE 33y5@ "i@[`2Xe65mezL]ėC$4 W Wd?ii>{Ef\E`O$IU.QܡEy#kp{8A% +QG#?Y+E½/L^&e;I}ԊF@(_J鞽*/x1W/V򐗎s-T״5]_U׈#<0̼r߷o߰qT=rw S8gU. ևWAvuZqG3,/Ceܭu 1h/Ww t=sNDuaz{پ!PJ_oic_O?t0<#8BzRcd^]VI;6Q}Hi :):~п@@OoW֋@Yzsm@9({!`(@0 CW8Z/ C0 ݞC0Ыe$!00c2ChCo`Ղ1jI!`4{|ġPIENDB`}Dd @ yy  A?øStanding and Fruits Fruit of Arrest Toy' s Statement Fruit of Arrest Ounce of herom Fruit of Arrest Blackie Toy Johnny Yee Wong Sun Standing to challenge arrest Illegal Arrest Confession & fruits of arrest Picture 7Standing and Fruits Fruit of Arrest Toy' s Statement Fruit of Arrest Ounce of herom Fruit of Arrest Blackie Toy Johnny Yee Wong Sun Standing to challenge arrest Illegal Arrest Confession & fruits of arrest " biykv?H 1z\۶/Eyn=yrDB~?t`PNG  IHDR` 9 !iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrssh*N@>8fJ&_N8]}nС//W.ҟ{5hz]}RYk&0_.q~H;蠃o)k.k_j۶c=!lcȅc.lvW.W$S[|/ۖ+[Vpe%5J]i:On7O&3<ӽ{ҋ-{qSLq/B`R~`rG]/Cʻ^'NL+?N`hRIg}vFW@d֬Y#߇~{7uDn~s #F8rV~=V>͚5fzfH?>#7p@7}t>3?;SB6 *}IE% ylxX PrLAtnРAAW'Ln%\޸ViR\6㲁"E:z+:묓6i$w~6fzn^?TY1eijhv[}ս?#}S\On<'ߢEP^駟NeJ0>qnI/"ߡCb<зj*mM7f?pbs_z饀k>`ߵk0^_yT~FUqNe{wqG,B}O?ށay;vӏ;K_ϡ!C/َt!ރ|uޱΝ;ͻ-_Ccc"Fy"kaD&QzX:Ēez/>`{dʤQ/IqH/?#XƀAm_Ji$ґOORH&QB$3 HߜG~.c TΘ1cB= ʣ~'?%0u ~rD:1eҏq)9.$1zH\΀aPj l YBČ6l㥊 %l:5N:T˛#+y?s #D46l:`Uk=\b=PXQ]8pC{9s\4%CX41Ҕ Iw8tkIWnqR{1u~_z|~6T'aAKN==GI}^;9F1/D\!r8n TJr,=ӜfJW^qoiI/lмdR9 ָvB8 NpX.IKh!dj*U~ܚ.WHϖ +mIz.7r?:G/0$`ȡ?1[Ex=yxZ3^:e ~r2[G^ZP8*-!UՋlI>NCw}i?xJ \)t'H*i 㙓\K24h-B:Nw}9jj~`ݮJY.R$!u'瞩cO\$$|{N:vw饗(wuay{\Og4$=g~$~S7tS`rbR8)`qRK-2F,$J/!]xneq2H{Ym+WtHfvj*֧O4 YSlHX,{yדּΪVղ GIz!4~Gdrɟ#Tʊ+tVG ~G-U)S8^r%E 5xW[mrp Kpp[obLrEoٿeE{HNaYPl,AA>JI=qBrɫ5FU8>.]7 ly[]@VRroQd~)61*>fBL 2,zPĪԏ?NcVhAuDROcV`)b!e,*GHn!K!L.,}46#Eӏ,`RUҐǪH4Q!ӟcVg*/rMvAH|XuX![3MƇo 11qQCOZSģ' SuCqBudP6g}[cX.#b1^ K g)pҵ $* pt0JΫB~;3}0.͔1 {,Д60VO[VG㜑!P*4/8m㤋 >Ag?+2DC0/"{`ݨ!r&:i #,72J KiXnm\АvqgL2NպlT@t @||O}W#$ cr@}iƀk Yk0 J0p%Y!`1B5 CWe!P[-d]C0*Ap%Y!`1B5 CWe!P[-d]C0*Ap%Y!`1B5 CWe!P[-d]C0*Ap%Y!`1B5 CWe!P[-d]C0*Ap%Y!`1BM!0m47jԨuUO&Oh#3eY!0Q fjo)N=TwQGz*O?ԭjJU'p;wv|Mjwܑ1/S"}С~A4ivm7G;,;s3U4CvF@5X>j7zSJ;CgI.]|6d˔xM7o6d >< څ_T ZA$5V۴iSnnk޼R͚5 f*A'K^;כ^٨SNnʖ]!}7wkFt_|qg̳DC6h xXJG8{„mΑq9Xf/0۽+cat2ݳ>vqG'?0:{8tIB{1ǸO?I L#t^xa$phoTzM$崔SUsܘ^rK촓%ƾcelkum\3v!C\ǕVJ  _|1Hnv?30.ȷvtMC>sM6u;ＳTfk:AHSLqHЈ# z]:$U.w0cj׮{CCuv]-.yE gT$e8ЗZdܚW_ֹ^.[o]./Rfz,d  V`W.~1׏>̟F>n}д#][=W_} -jO; fj&v>ӤV|a؋[o42_1-"{RUW]N*Ƀ>V\q|)뮻I<a ^¬^z ]sC9|o8,}qc\IW3ǎu? @* 'jXgw #Ҥᒪl~˻%M8н-=#y-t݊{#y צ/X̕@#$}~q IonCE}?Տ{N0RZH`r'pk۶mz6zy%/r7IflԻwo[PKT p0n}v\z]72 E x^~8`I&d/BR\Ixӥ"ELdA9LK"F5Lls]6,4~=Ha( ;j/di-Kl[[LqT˕zI7GzHC&X4o_LLc~cg\ Ǥ=3:bMd+ RLg9xu啃Xl1|^/\uQQ%$&h0"͗?7ts Hb]vqPE̚5'IA0G}40`-)d12Tf.7? 9г?<&\5!֭[*N B6n.#"1"IM\:%5ž⯢[S$M%*4䦛BvN^hӣYLto(gw$޺{w7_RhEXb/I;JCv[CƇfW_$Mҏ4W~yy>L-0,c\{_3 jlx/e@ϝ|C"`]^~]Y #.li+aHj t`ѷbTÂ0zvy01б«f 7fľ>h6G?YXG!JT@Z$StK3*C<7tW:_RK&h>SvҐM1jB5 aPkΔD1nO i_}8?"QA 1 DWP 2bL?I򉤩%.\Rx9 4eRD)x$haFs #oKJ4 \ѿx?R$ oՌc6U ^YN3 PmoCLNX[I0Se ʦX͖5MKMFuմm1 \KZlrUϘעKYn9/"B%@Ic.5^j5Chl.RdUه4^rD.G$ I6?dy;7*C`~м#:bzp7]vِ>_bhA\ě J_7l*zx#*>,".ouKݢoZF ڐ322b+9Ơ)Ma?JȊ?Lt{.k;D@7O r\)u/;w^yO\0 12@KDUm'ɨ5i/P4`1CC2b ~swx a륏>0J*/=#16Qн~'tMQ0 KjJEƘss,)dy;+~G.ɍl[-$yFVGtx\g93I26_YzS3$Y),&J qvv[Y58K=t1ٶ2 øP'd#-%{M%7b$d^}ìw]Yc~YpqIL!`6ƀKV!`#P򦭄!P7H #C0 ؞/Nt]P I XGUr3˼qe% G1`V@ ђ^#C _f!Pl48b?:D|桸޿:Y݆I X#<{Vex,3(_Y⼎Ӣ v諠5kvrUi3ʖ(5ot`>1 XNr\nnY@$xL $F*/RXIV"P3 )3I4hY9_ AXNي-Q*k&(7&r.1`"Ee MBa,7+b܍Äz!#B{ 7I%9Q.j>mĀsml=V-](`V1HƄ#"! ! QF@-[l6 ]HhCmAvk.e㎰ }T8'*J 3:w)'i2Y6JDbKtrjf*.|h3bEKC;w\ N)s p+u߼SepO֋Yf,*1{HzT,rRxH]o^1_õJ^Nq_tr[hvO=TJ+yŐbz鰽W|Yx{ej /Iݿ <nP^=ۿ^f/`9@E #\evEDnbQ" ޘ+ $HPn$0>ۑ#ە_qXHX>i#v,q]g#rE8W!g2CFE"Iٶ]#v@j=8(3&gR>€adI1* o$iPP`#eI~e;rmlxJB&}AGc9<(`l6I/,JlKϝlM(V W6X$BwۺѽƴX6^$YS(Llw kk׍+!&AS,kj:geҫdNY0㰕p"#f0F F[`%`4)sHyxR }%M>t\h :%$qÁ81_|>X{E 8Yq͘:VUM1>86]QMjOl~A$qm$R}`\qLs &I^ahK"d>1j5}@[Kuwyk' %Q{;VyεDN:s=70,bO5I#^zދz;c&^ ^f/B/K7tSO>Lm`tfc=0ZuURx1|߫W//Ik8<1~~2LW0\O\+@b E1"xH0 rDCp{&֣0 ЬJ#` u&0 &P6cuݯV0 V`Fkc 5_7\78]jc5VO\Om1jg &7'a ƀm`u,ƀscYŃI󬬧1Ί5nnp)=3cYHM.[3\q $KeƀKI6q_"1"}p\*s^VId c XIUE77`}6&WBk0\-kkSk0\dE#ċjUkcx7o͛4iRw!`paYLEn gC ;ƀcc9E運Yw1`{ J̣l41hu$ƥ6BcDxLnHn Hu"HSNusέi)@Dp|(֥#V[omFozVv˚G/von֫X@- мڴ& :G`-t;Ｓ;vCCPl%\Y?wn+ܓeCp6d,0 ZFt 5o@6gC Ce2|ngO͜Yc`_~YWZ /]v`+ܴiӲV&Cq;S2O?AmM6q?cVar~>}z*N @ / K/u't;Cdn:UVY!aed_}+1c̛5k;ꨣB;qŠA#S޽ݙ]{nf\C)zOC,_ʖ޾]!P%ejҽ6WM^^~yi?ڽMmcs3X?7E9zt6bDm݄/pmۛo&tEߞ{/|铑0d+ӿeC[W_9 gܯ17t $q{vKrS1|u)rhᇻ~ pdF?xuI2R;#0c=65V*?-bA*mٲe~Df1kf-v9縡C%fk`D0|a_~u]SN>dwM7^x!HwuW˖h'@ĀǼz`ze7 (>č5bMWy0Ğ2̖kx1B#-B?Mxµ_nrCAu~{g-50!$M,d=1*3ack7ow-+i|>ҧ xQuU~G|ҍAxun1tKlf~k6}l =O?&whܐG;wP !qżpMԤ^` wVX!Jn#Q?V>ʪ֒`=%7?q=$mG)p/ VT-gBt}q 7GF.x>3f:zOc7J(lNGNxt3}3Qzp6`gyOҥKm#[GÇe8O$=jd;7E ޚқuNMĈ`VHties~3M7e镵ƈd)?tSPIRz_J 1Gg}IʫcYMkP!fki8N6B$_ВYf'\uu1< z^_K} zsUg,V(GHVε bx8gN8΢ eW]MڞPwtҴV 鴕%bnꖓ*E4eFAzŕdjfD)Coa[^ C=}CL᷑=;"%%a6r WhWP :;.0=YjL\*7^Āhz Ex)2A`JR[, $NB0xz ҐϓKs#[}0fY9XZؖOXCeȐp!5d $s^" u'J<^@͖'__2(X1RwՁ䉚H,hXW~{9}fo8T|Aѵ>^f=ym@?[LF{O'̍c0K}F|PFfKh䍀JI%ge/z=IL?ryc??ٶcG﨣]z?\stפwC~qG?sܸrmq1˫gnG eQ}8ݻwO>i >7kD.gt28)̙c77$yS'?CO8¿~}yy@={PVJ2 kYG@ވ#t<&ݬrVh'[z`@Q"MкkW'&ZgI@=\ئb9~lY[ӂ{͔iK.Е jx/hnXJ X'hnOV1 c Y Cd01d 0:1`x̐KY1NR# >8bdz\ve)_d AJ*|7 vª 0a,YmE.P`*,+?)M1?}+h_t hQ#*cΒf#CJl!6!Y GvXPhƎ;~6xcǎu1@mޫM Vno@;oă>PHv:Ho]%#I% 94L :,|koiVa/aW@B o$3 ;N+B\HaQMk Qq}^$]p 2&%\п"'Mo'=08/Rbb.a9,+%1 XZR_(SHꩧܖ[nT6ô0 E_cykGK.!` zYz@ *rY+kߏ5O<_U˄#n^ 0\eB(\\fy1ĐG=1pβU`ߋtM AN;Tx9>`g^z+zRCn!UGb!]YXDø&^*P_vdM"6Hdꞥ剀Cٌ3 %`H(#i~,H[.C.: 2UKٷ +bԱߩYNG*&gvd`1 jGGM -W5\Kݕ֓v/ˎ kT8&լ6,RCˏ=d mu!U&  &wG!QrUb`pxz2Kw!.o΍6<B`鄮P1vz~>Ж\Qbq"I•+j#7?h¦KܙOjK@ .l+b hc: fLE@cC tH@6Qة;{ U(30`@r0}aL N~ 1mE![qT/)R>H6n'2F#`pYzB*f11aM08~`W8Z16^^Sy)c<5:{{m*k`obrc F* iRA~#vB F½\U-ڴ1NҭNk^6x&zT1IS`D#-WBK;={Ûnepd FF@1 P.Y ^}mE@:uQ!`:FKbƀK1 @ņ1b{b߬ZVh,"` >V0 YEpowA T ` N` 51DڪWLW ` ЬJDp|.֫Ύ(fuƀ%(L.Ghb <1ƥ6BcDxLш~p>8vEL4l7cƀmn:Qw]v C0\[Zu:vCC XVa#`*|w0\K)Rk6܈~ TԞl鎧yF֘8sM7䴱m3lL÷))g>8vy&Lv^hO?u_L_5@Νi`ڵVCv0 v)S /\w[#` p쬦!`B U6 Cp4 CZ|V>}8p7n\/Rð>ƀK!6!̞=>I&O #mѢEHjw}N?p׽{w0n{_=3W^#{M qQO/fwy'ĔSi<1co߾SyG&lC.0 '",v/jnV 篾j*v{g6O|M7m4knsA޽{K%ڍ^_/Q\˖-ѣ ':6t- cu`kkCK,=P`PoNҶOC~+ӫnnРAiӦ ܟ*קrJ^!7u)n۽b^҂ʡ^?~=iW\qvm{'ϋ;<0=!oW?q5mB^zi2dgC~!_?/O:$?sPy.l۷oe]ueH |0 8O :uJ!^xsͼK80A+B0=~ ˋ[+[o=.W_}QѵkW⋇6mڄg}z뭮UVA;| 1')u~$ڹ!ƀA@TC|ܜ9sE:OG^!@p ;Y`Hv{h@9҇ kfH!BqKVFHw;\>}{EUԍ/K {mqDRF`6ƀkF>jK/%Ͻ+&>8#S}TQERҏ=׽{ .ƵL$}qdn`:tAjpLJf Qa0@ [GE+bjoaF,j$Ċ%\:" dsoFF |' mZj1҉0vdzN7=0UW]ա/kcҤIW֏{ٵ!P 2,ZFKp0u-Α:Օ'Bl Xq Eè1eq.]&h;RotKM}yaY1@ڬS`xQm-u_TnPh`n`ĺSupWCB t%6tS%Uoju1:neZK IDAT@3%ѰsC0cu0 $ƀhع!`u1:ne@cI40 :Dpm2 C 1$vn@"` [!Dp ;1c8̟??lw ![ȳ(S1{묳NzS]ў|!zYljbadbPGuT^ { '^hr-W#G IPwBG!ɿ[!P|Mi `p>(YеQS?7?gwb"q.ɴ| Nqֲ7pv_Nf˶tC0\kЖ^0Bv`W vA پҮawwC\_͵OB96$Rj?%Y$n;6Hؑ#]y / 19؝{dhhQRx! <[kd7jԨxp/3<{=wWP}z~m:va i~7۵s;vl$ݐ>hРv7{+9[kwpζ.{1Iϖh߳gϰ5=\sz1|?õ ͚5le]&Njsԩy^L6 hS65=+(|ֆiLOYh$ ꈍ78q:v⋃JEE}A ct`wCVZ)lMFm;Xt9xal֎v^{mǖC6mB܋ވr(J>`3CCF@M#` -.,;;뮻ܨ#3Yn@5! 70r.$Ŧ6ŽűmbZ#gznʔ) \KnOF*ӦL6mBG^Ů j#` 6`I}[ntQٵ^txHm6Y$y=j i>7;&2>]}xG!P4X-ԛ3gNJrG<6ī"eOC$ᮆ/;%g#>{wP9 CɎOn^hOgt;?թWeL!mR!'10B3e%J!+> 6wߝ53&\۷ViŌa٤kM+/F~i}yMCymWc$NE^ c=6^zF6t裏F1Ͻ}^?SB=m+:Jޯ~ȑ~Ȑ!C^*zzk1i/6/.G ^{z^^vn| پ6Tb>?{ .?߿6~~U.?ٶ'+|:͗%fzV\O1"|fո]~̙[ T$9m-!i7x?[/+k[`_u`rycrdɠ>Q]5@fpu3(&2~@F +tk*IvOS .px!4Yd^ [3YwVMNJP}|nԩuu˂#2ͥM{QIDd|Y.m|jH45@KDӲӞZ?XNﭻusKlk.ן~r1_q>ڵ[~y7P u5L?7ZѦ{w!r7s38݌vMg\Xt۠wxUnMWb34W'vc}&~ݮU.nڐ!N I{ 1Ǹb݇rM cdn }BC#pƍ #e-Brmq}nؿ~{Հ 1V1NVr-A`T8| XXoatʧzkժUZMC# 1~b:0H$Ati'7Y~k!2Wt1.og{`VY%\ϑ!Eu%Ny6 ͮ.FC`iؽVժM~"Ff]A]ʭ.8\re+~Ҫ9bؑՇd N{q1 J,7KďeLFF/>D1tqA-[mH{gpAI_.Ga}< @0;E4eoT;P'-ޯrYi3|4@zq1D3nz?"C}P n;ZK?cHq $m#yHj@ޒL+~dMo#7u nEdchYkOoʹh5@0Wdb޽ Z reKhh܇!!Ƶ(4\k:5ч1i޺ue3"O>VjVc-# ~$O+|5ZDQEAM$_ br'!)2:9@Jhy;Zbp~@1= [;eUlHo8rU͚BdH&|xGqzej6V,[.a/~o;VG'of3{[AѬvbY !\cĮiJ?jH-)/)O/ B:?7]vِ>GF6h VЂ^HԿfe-eS1 D:H%@ 20PZº@נTrL>dL\Q( ]A7,&IZa6Ib\үyU=O_US>rX1XbGӨޣ>~̫|ڏh^ xqN*ѫ0ZFG^[J0K/퐄qo+$-!0tWf&?͕Ork G<$DtZғ\'I~3M=ڵQc;~󍛭~rRRD"!7dꯩ&^D,# vwV<)xUH㏻OkoGM-p e'bYEv 6^\hx f f r} B&Q%ClK^LT:Cz qrI|,]ƪc N!p;cK ^UΓ9s>ĕ >G2G,e=OJQ_#X}6 +f@=T&ƌd32^ .'][BT+Iʗ*ǒ GHJKX&زz~X˂;-d1p\h3a~4 v;T#U_m+*h`dK+C(N;y1pβ-7W%~P~pj ˔9ۋp(y=|p6B:108,ݻ+[{{1P^{,m-HS1CB?QK!%axnBCz?s}T~Ŕ 7ܐ+K m)}jܤJ" 5,߮)xaEkkjR3Ȑg64\bKX䯮F8u^^bHwqiJF(~HH'\|UKȩ.{/LHRӿ>,ޡ7[/{"BBf׌5X#\!xD8LVQ_Lݡn!/4PZw9P ,(|$ӯIs tSبft}¦[n.=30Q(⏏;) p']L]F;隚pb"q='ax^ӽ{{Wϯi+a?_ G~6]_s/)v4kc04G^ MBt%ދLc?xdЍ1>︣9n\Ecrrr|q $X(n %mƙ62VBKCJGb2Հ _U$)2M+ 1O!3HP.!e uO"*- Gh $aC.EBϛtd[$#%H!Ff1귉dxG; е+Q qk/4x5_,=2Fb<㊒xLzʚ+ vT)$–!PR@t_:OOE@q%|wIPaΆ$k0`(ҫ _}pÆ:E0ү +&tpDal  F JLܗH lSr.Mw"!YEeDFWI: e8T"@EM3jS,@/{1/q CI +ˢ9҇/w챮UE1%J }QB6y ׹.1_c4 U29#!ΞczGuzMISO=c1I^VQ ? 4Gdǂ@^,:gR mKfBH2IkCC=>ѡtJ:wt1x`qnKDBH?jɔGň/a18ԧˮ&ˆcUcD` ـ ,E̟\U9@$tȅ/Fc9GϏU*n?m>m[Tv߬C`ܣGw@چ5Ib (F:vői5gt(Gtז)}3]D"D?ƀ^')Qt|*.8@ԨX.ѶppR/up%2:Cync"(*;3fUE_m-q`E4?ҽz-Q 8"dv%&#ZP/׶ȇ " h~9DMK>ᾙߥZ!UqYoY< f~{~|iɪ?VzRiQ cBe"٪rUXQSTNM&em,X0DL- 8iKo#LH8ވI~bD?tĻe&vKz` 8u_MKOTrgP!?|s_ʤ;mʹ42\b` %cKx? (Gʈzxd[Yƚ +\ 7HMt-- :_ R>xE5)x5[ *P;W6(P&x v%k{S1#aaO[K+-*4`ƀPL0dkL$#~ݙˠRAiWR/;+b*9 |S IO_z]EsCz' bA}oyz-/v]:l+ώPXԇFt;"Mz! fx $yM鳙!/xr'f:M]-Pu=|.oeEWՇ'ǖ?V.X'9B& K9G~U!XRmTe3'T'=Ys,Og9t٨R ƐPu2>a808s* 'nC tHHuMI)1/x?IgM'pB#UՇ~'ǖƀKyhX.Lsc2[$E1M>*^G}<+XDCy醤 e72v9V擞b_1> 1x˧UՇ=}l]; ζXF':ozLyKdIL_w`V`"x~ң?lhv6؅?BxdIԿ0,]gge|WD؂WE0H*_bUaO[z_t1?6ِ ԇ-:Q S';}Feece>H܋HHI_طQ?݂} *n쒾[oCp=S!` .e4 Cp=S!` ƀAY7 C0\zFdE1"yPMC(=3@ ` Hu0JăʕxķIENDB`wDd t  BA?H Dignity Infamy Protection from criminal proceeding General public opprobrium Picture 13Fifth Amendment's Scope First Criminal Trial Arnendmen t Issues Privacy / Dignity Infamy Protection from criminal proceeding General public opprobrium "b uKcgAӚFVte ntE_'++PNG  IHDR(OA!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss=R֮]KFu3}~~>w}!qBˤEF b*Mnn.⋴u֠{~ 7PV$=&&MHiӦ೜_~FIժUvIwq=c/[|Mzh˖-m6UVt @O:$())|~; >ￏv/C}ΦG}&NHׯ^zѡJG}|L0n} 0N[`V~O>;XCu& 駟n5mT>z|&*c ~۷vZE?ૌI6qW׌UV;３$lTRd3cŋS͚50`9z=SSS)--#,Ǐ3fHضR8鲰]aWWtGR۶mI&ђ%KNOO/UwMzjp H,q3}~K.7`̙KWT"E r-T~}***Jꊵr#k۝#r+W90]˗/,PG @j#݀Kƍ +'mڴX&B]tC6l@Ǘ=ٳg} (++K&n9sj׮M͛70? .$6m1#@[ _`hO<>5=p刷yr;8 zN/e f;q2NJP,ˣ=zQGUJXfO馛n6cRD,1y7(Gힷҿcg-w̼W:u݇~H}QD)c~o=L@9_sYzXٞ,|1=08-LA]eG<% AF{d;,@͛7[P@?0/|P#y}6njc4mѢ-.$>LX]^X &bډ'C&^=P0ʶnZe4|`96R?h` ,էOlz3?^_&1dZ_N2_< ~􆰂IqdϳHreͼaq&yᇝr[rgIO++0;JCbȋG\y;+'vL {(o>s 3VvaAŝ7My !éA;hW76*7I?;ZT3bvZ:#r<ʃʡESއ!C7^ C[.6o K4QH=pC.Z!_7-N6l6YW!PyW({%§ 90%%@1ětd略$G7C 2qa(V$78.(zB@qx%mX F>,&fDn6h@!QL޴|[R+Ae}>W{ςfp:LZ0ƀգ0Vdo=@fE}ϴ/bA`1 OlΊnuǒ6WuruP]&^ [N2P/Fq@Ua7iJ Co#qtfL7|3A[8X [ zШ/¶O?dV3l)W6 [h\*1Tp3m5l w/g'b,PG H$Úar X Ncd70oq=&PȤ7Wg^c{ޤ1̋e!7Ͼ3yWP{ہg 3(d3Wgi:XV4]yvG:#0e͙RTL{ =ȔaP_S:Ly|{LY>qn%>"A`)h΃-)'Q|~X\B]mծ9̖Pb+I{ `(12y@ pqAsF][mvmC-u}j ^qC^ox@8C b?s"PyE8z9D UZ<`]j|W- m@lAK'`F$νXr 9#bSp&}Xq-'O;!y\yoI8_{|:0 zrǪ6cDG^ęm_~}i: )gp0!*U6e 8˂{NŜGq rȻ\0f9؉`#2Ƽ=e&foY !1q^Uz'cGAO^!_6S*axpX-[,`|d4i@v/o|e$l-@MBKmc=!0ag`̄Y߲"?h1,e_c.ȑ l[g3D([G,gE2Y î۷-8+ E+ya }Bܼ{bdoGY|z駭*UXr&O,A`-V{֮]k1ӑs)X&iXiCr?|Ӻ[ƪ˦䙙ū!q𛦤Tfpj֬Y Ra9SPkvNcg>eha+A*l#oPVVAnҤITn]IpeNc%r !V XԪUKQE8֣(qO=a{Yf&xL!ҥ IٲeԮ];[[RV֭#E+X%u%\eeAM(@Dg^pk)5֐ V7t-\P@ h[` hjA;c8oqI~g>AA)mpeaTSE8'-+o7Lmڴ= hͲ 3V!8g 8XB¶ʕ+E- N: @Vf8cEWhfx.6/É$5rItcl2&esh~GزBVh"{V8zڀ=Pp)qPyqwYt,ʃ^yU8C`]}ն#_ApYlRb&icLU(7on?fһ+ϼJ1U<3#m%PSz!)+2hǾdmjg2ve >¶+Wog T*~*;e6xq񶙃x(A3R:r2a3l`0!YNN/_gȹi[@>Փ0l X:Cf?CX8MHNN Ŷ3ޓl77ae\Ǎ!/X"qhTP[09@yī`ze{o;8*+ x'AV"ޤA5,q&9='ڈ9󙲜WՋ GrlO$m^|=:&D`%2KL(Xp#xƌ\R7ۄL\ J(1& t'&Lf@01{k뺷A?_e=_J<_aVx',vDcFvı= e `]>`mڴI| G؛BW]Җb̂toH[oX=,j[(ć Ku W^yEʅ,Od5h' |8گ_?{:i9P/E׸烬G}b+=xV,/A,V]^q{i@fsW.#>=3ЇYb0 B=.U$)21q Կ@e!?&P( _c>K B%<;D{0aWl0<;7X+I[t|\EtGV@o3u䟰'omsp'T[vm1J>8iW(k_۔hΡ;1d7lC‚JwXЅz>t5i-F(,ύ3OqDa-_P*b8BCbrGqDmKPZ +X9Yxsg\5 Xwyj4o?ISqF#23rzUEK1>`Qǹܻb[Z`c &0وU.+ V,3:pM,U]Q%R%}6+3*1q 00e,09x0*_ ``P4@ ZL4vXuQ&+Q0c҂锅 +i82jG e@4&8­UjM68VUfW'+b_\

O|[I .YISv&%1T`t@ #p7ﯾVpka :Q| >1$r-́̈;C| W9ATZqTڡ׎'X%- v+]7FA8>?䔲4dOp h*Τ7FC`Ȩ6RiqD Y-W"83<`jteV` n,bۊ_Z)29wJ9pZ2.XoS"׺0!0 `8 w'p<#N loϡ| \,B`0^"׺2"y||ce0E8°M/(x3 Ul_4صl[+Ml`l ?C|9s (}ӦMU[Px> gL`|1 \X~; ςD8B3ٳ"Uɔ* NJݨu3de1bO-Zgu=?qP :bf a ϧ%>ΙύgyƂ -\Ĵ7Z| )`9c2 =xi%be;Kqd`Y㏷n|:|x0h7|zaGYL{G*?G Z_o5Z/2ݺu0/;+UieTI(ˏ@Sn𝂉!= U\%~G L e L[g7DIx MM|B\Ł~v0@`^l9{ gYfρg8r@\^,Vr^%-B]c5ynU1J@#s)p T) oͫ@x8st>\9+WװP]2a0  B|cx!rm4NL" v_x+FDER!-N:FMǹLąRʅDca׻>W|8h"T:xKG}iBYa4&O>dqCz#DG}Ձ4xA9h9OqݸG S3N"B#4"$}pSC W^yEγXerHlcXe -0_ULWѣ%S+mE]Byq^UE f(nFz Nڿ.տ9unX.{nyhʼn@:UKLgPL[Ki)1&m"(@:бaNF*5UG#.hGǬSץNl7#MSE@IʼU$dnC}[ $vͶ|HKŴ>'̒9kwMEcowDtXۚ.AԽYu[=_KqItdT`E6z6ˤ漢yltٴGgPdZ!Zۺ(gm;+qi("@T/,!4Ϥ?YB-B#oϣc^+wWQ/ΑtITyeM^K"v.mZRy[wR_f:3WRJ^Vo/;]N)I̘vP?oɧ\%&Ԥf:Ua楤("P̎SWogn_AO^MwoJCoLCnBI?:7ʤznAFr~ue9v oMlA)<8i3$¾ hܲakEM4sM.=}ZrNlNjyӔ:5JsJ9(|ɦtcvV6֣QE@D ,cνעmHKZTOmd"(=5sݑh%o9l&/@ܒg6#Vmu{W'_ˆ2rWOIq;o9lq10۔O /f("]kӹ}Pz.FY=s-;Tl#ۖږWH}XV@w)-孥\{7*3Ex㕋?Z=_4Ū}˧ኀ"T&²`X\sDczgr:zvޜςL:W}JvJ9ESmm{%xlLoMk("P@/*ikT9)m{8A7El 5eNZޚ2X(Y`8VFގ S4!5MDm؎';QPE(3'l}-]{Q%?ьU;~zz6[_Tjy}U7JcyMG57Ǯ'hceUK4h 7_czxJj|dْ_;?nX3kA %z$^%/PURE@@9gFKiw~}va` `>wѻY6ck+{W!Jj.2#FײcQB{ 4PTt S>Re"X-_( [[-YPE@1p C;"[8ֲE@VU8Gr9'Y~Ȍ\RjeAọlBv]BʓЌ#$$*A*D7+XԿ}m+CZW㺔 }.Vվ"(Fɏm>RڮjKB8%ޕ܉q*%.>ڎp\Z<"f;s,t tZE]~B]$uLfyeyǹ3!ecRqq;n-i+;NNݜ䞸r<6+Į[U WCΧI*"P\^;]XZQOsu6*,t4>ݥqco\]|_8[z}+5]U@`>9C"CVZ"(eFƖa<\Tf+3؜slp9[ɠ7Z4v6SM>ݭq&UrTtcMMk,rr؏NG7F]L3F(gK{p¢SDI^qQ]g%mtYuTqÍc?^{5qp/'>0-~GL]yu8&;jp3#Zm7LbnҘ]M.[guqs,vGrN2ERw}v% u4>LZ3fߕGv!KyJK9QaSisnZd0 7rmU}&?]Ӆ? C0aԑ}7 sۤ5^N*21P(w͕y,96lA^aEw\fidtzo?q#;tj*Q0[-z5JA-dÃpکQubLdXe7ըJvن\! _;p>9i*kZ;6)C5y(@ гyuAW0 <d/=E+Y|Ls+{ᏵUԆ_bjx$_,6NcCk/=?L#0w3Hy/VWsx Eޅwc3"(q/Gzԋ8,cѾ^gkp NXd䱩bzU4l@KΜcQ6g6Ԛjg{uqv{i:4*NUG^Hayer+E@PDqM; a |l8iͶ|fEW hcs3mҷ`GM (lR36rҌ5W9\ uɫWE@PxӔ)ˏ`_@X=aNF:!@b:ѫ"("8ĩfd.tlwjI4b:Yuzv269ױ&^E@P#P.*כMu7ѷC:QG=u^V1BԌ}luGpMYeIŔDzC8+,Jܙ_h׀|_VѾ\ǚr("23o{Yɛh͎HMh6p84@ '|ޣS%<õWbgO/>-Q w3e;i\™?ѝjSW!b!{+:}-)۸=Y"(@(2δe^^+iD똱>okiʬRUO}-O_%15x4|28wJlS+ƼMm/(3@Ns#5UPE 08Xv9STlxazஔUױ1E@Pʋ@mUmMcR(>i^+6uxO< cQ~ )BG0 4C@TYDbu,qDZ"(@Pmĵ>E@Peq>|E@P2h#)"(+"mqDqOP8G@G6_Ph##ڈk}"98|"DeF\SE PWE (6Z"(q28@m"(F@GE@sqjE@68֧(@##P(@Pmĵ>E@Peq>|E@P2h#)"(+"mqDqOP8G@G6_Ph##ڈk}"98|"DeF\SE PWE (6Z"(q28@m"(F@GE@sqjE@68֧(@#oYCF.-R\QͦA?}u.-nrKWrzˠi"E@P#Q]~XOj4s󹔜To6F?YN|4E[O)"T aahzzF*nYկ4@%*5\|J ))"0q$Yغ|'oaܽ䷵kn5S(7;pm.;.g}a k͔-vn)ivڼh{{wԅ@ԻaVg3*)"@VU-_nB_^DGܷ?ɥsӶt)q\c= )IjN?^?Ϣgo/GOjNؙ@\6wʢFkӶh+{Q:oe/Ρ,'jAL;Rғ[7Ѝ O&"l+ !AZgE@|h&e֯#-f»05%-CBN;w"KF.dzhIoҳ. H4_kv`]ڵa}gGR?~gA#+' ḀYtsKd*-g(󭿡ƻ{bU[qO|݃jpiWVIMzlWIgyulmvʵSeʊ@:fqZKV*xӺ:.궩Aա'4ͧ5%lmWïGf,J؂U$G+ޤuG( X1Av&[,Q(JBx,w&;F[Q'P{6 %䌿$ܳ쿫/Gg9DQ'lMGFG:Y!H*SJjpܥ\xQ@su]w[Mg[\WO,,SR\G[L6y(ζpW~OV9'?>9&]CoJOee ro--jfEeoķŅֹ;&*⩕W(J׀t4}7 1K~i׈~y7 ZW,_4$&3/w}CbY9Icq^㒟*$0~D"呒YD>6&6!7w_](!s' Z-ӊ\ZQI:/VAuf-βJD1V1X#7@*,~IIDATX@B;= <4&4x}8vo+TR5 [%E–<#%8s+idKjſpqO ݡYe(G?[a<*fiUǗM} L?~!QH\&HJu=u܆~h,ҁ^4jN3YN8~l,_'PRj_-:NnEq唴F(m-.X]4PJ|w"f',`x̑n `wI] 0VWf{3vSa|U i5R,縥 eSM+KE\N"XgBJkf50>"s7?A ?x)7Z{1:q {0}0t 0N`Ed»԰8 dza( [Pe=3(^^@^ӱh>E@2UYNtPRAxX]̮8:HRTnvnkr s&f2̸*|RE(h=mB32"do2NFײcQBϓ#tH7"3kdp-K:eA-Ẍ́\;Cnbkٟp1Uw0}PE@/~j:d6{\Xv.Iv5{Ш4j,eO]hqZ;|K~=vMUDr/[+3]M&F/nm4x4gJ52mB)ITLea)M+U?y ]4E*&f\A]Ggϔ9}/}B,xY-t};("Fpܙd3o.ȡNL?fqfChhhoq7)w u{}FHm3]k2y/)P{F҅na[gуmϥ.ir =]U,?os4Uԯ~b&:gγW}v`}6fD)t欧E@PO2bZפ<EkPMM}/Y[~&J$I3rںw' s !8Ҥ?Y\/*~ʞFv.ox{$YrL`g(=%U _Q,3FuӲi Mj*%E@PdPýQ>s Zwѡ;ӛ~%2wŞMԞxMXs=Tٔ+mSTH{)蠚(Jm2|l;VE@P@H2}AM!Ю+UެJ]zJIw,&UHз':Dm2n*J*&SIPEleټ(yA0oК)`;tk[! (59jg':,NҦ_P +*X+-tkcL{!V&1cs9a8fL',uRT`򪦤yXהWE@P*;\5b-&}_Ɇi[a ?;%~@^z+y/Wk̔H%uԙWf=IM=Xz!Tġ:!%ro剾1 ;DNkxտnwPr]E+YF1WT{2觞w[&+Bj/._KFʣ(" $9ae/[K-ԣ:,@we`! vV&ބsY|*L|8`7j#{ƃ}'uֹ4t;tz'ӏ=(U ^lz}e2ʮd<^|MbslH0d 髍-*k9Mj7p'.n|=:Vt璑4}};nf_cԠE=X\m ۋ44A >یn"0ʈ? BvIfRW>n}6^'%>uL"q3\26l:d**^VL69ƎȾ4iΌ vN+l=68Т@nfaw 7fs*n+k~b%%[TG \I+"G~ܒ$GR-HHB-veTpYq%5zё^;zw-o[a1Tq ^ iƘI'/E%ER 』oc}ahNWIWi%`]ʾ@{Ǘ961H4z}bF֙X+[¶7w׹e/8r:JP-lw=%f v;U&R[Uvl}G p̾e 7^uGW'|o;:Uof"VDىDW&Z=pbU+K9U*"nCpt cm*p&hJMYJ&bT߀fV>aa!o(vlyp\/l܏ng!8\^8??\q4β h''*KnhQf 7qF**pTF }*)׀!Rj݊\RƎ@q]RZeI~gJKz쿍cbVx0qeV˖[2QzU*&ۏ6MY*kt8}y"M۱䮧/XF @/u,N}.oz NvՑV{t4=?N2\j˓f/*4n:vgoj~2RӃ}JpO;P.HnZ Ovi2sz;6@; nh7?Y8' %gnfYhAP̖4ptkU n|$}٥k='AleuGE)8?wK|@R)xWJ0+[! #4"X ܻ-ȦΙJx dY%je6Vs !Ic!},Y]8űԾXm qu(@KϛWoD*Y":؇qDZKyUyWqMct,xi֢("K(㈥ж("(㈃A&*"K(㈥ж("(㈃A&*"K(㈥ж("(㈃A&*"K$㘞Y]1Up E@Pp00tъHvo]4"(@x-̥7JE{p7eUPE8孧{sŘ \to#+wf{ {W0*-zS8ym"TfJ80_Mj7:'4dpv#e`frrUbuG mB{QL޹:N;տPjw?0Q>[ѽm4?w5t!@qw1)[T6`j?A:jRt;ѳ+{~DyΙJ"~rܕtiFPJ[J-EwӬ֍=AxDM}i[voVm2Gclw]`mܳ/q?nbxjnL_{ =᥻'jv+}gS p> c~2tJp3,X#NW7?XB4?e4"(R2s)5HI O1f{S܂g}kQR15|7RFoEXi8 M귛e3_y;VoJ;]-+x:|5ttn)R*"Pdټ}dh ju<cs iu4m[A'-',l_kF*VCkSvIW?fn]U?u.]G[ vVlN iwˇ:@3rcCaZE@P\ܪx?Uy{VtS˓JˠzG ̠kfsB#[W|MߡIҲRk Aסt53_[2#I*3-A y?E*xf nYUOʾjTE@P*3>]BmkhB'uՆV/%π$JmFR|g+ZVm@)yA Ub9KU!(,Y0OgJ殡ykNWQ|Ym~㣅k쌓Et"Mu>CC |꾘 Tc!+L8>8^/r[^TomyjA;(@ JmU$HayuSPqE45g)McK=Vfa]GfZRu,ʂZyJ1Ћ"3Rkdp-K:eA-<qC/Ns("$:8}"eaTSE PƑ#SE (3Z"(2Da"(aF@GE@Htq$kE@38 (@##GX(@i0uhq1Yg#-If(3: UE@PݪJԎ("qDgEPA@G vDP #:8k-"$ 8f(#"DeYkQE aPƑ0CQE :(Z"( 2J"(A@GtpZE@Hq$PjGE@8֢(@ #aR;(@tPE@Pe 3E@P2ଵ("0(HԎ("‚mwIENDB`Ddx "  A?Scope of Fifth Amendment Privilege Infamy (privacy) Transactional immunity nvatlve use Use immunity Picture 12Scope of Fifth Amendment Privilege Infamy (privacy) Transactional immunity nvatlve use Use immunity "bZ4ᐊ{U nw+GjPNG  IHDR(KƲ!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss{^EQSQAEHzo)dM6&ل9On޹SΜ{9gf\X(񅼷-,,,, RRRR/ Xl$KKKK+0lV`E&RRRR ,,,,~FKKKK(`_d,,,,}RRRR/ Xl$KKKK+0lV`E&RRRR ,,,,~FKKKK(`_d,,,,}RRRR/ Xl$KKKK+0lV`E&RRRR ,,,,~FKKKK(`_d,,,,}RRRR/ Xl$KKKK+0lV`E&RRRR ,,,,~FKKKK(`_d,,,,}RRRR/ DŠ+gϞnڴ)>Vn<~- Hϟ]v囗e:tK,7PJDg طo܀"^}yƌEF@T }h>(*VO?]vEvpףo߾u,ϯ:FaO۶mqgqwਣBzաCC3M52mڴ1iEϳ:+O^Cae*޺up饗f͚5jx fذanԯ_C >C~rV&MкukN+..էO<}P=)\kv7Hpj֬YDm+֭[M;뛜:ufJ.JIIq}׾N>d,JQqi<( FA \jrQ%;v6lZxqp8zO? 7}ȯݻw$\r|+!!w.*ꞛ6mjѢE_B%.y /[kΝyޅA #xԩ82ڵkqF\cTT W\q4fbbbq?B*S/8 _p%#,j&%%=(;f  "aA+B7o"@ &MNs=iii9ϺIMM5V1;O9pt';oH 6 +WΉm6|FO){/7SASyrzN:aFSx,X*j$Pݖcڴi3g~߿?ywqǡ{98b76'p>}:j_={9ՃRjU\tENVcPm/u .gy?@Uz^x'~'ξ@4^{ɓ ^5j0IΝ s=UTɓUAmflH2v]7SW?9LYT)&߃*1Y8ro…ͻ x*FwlS>٠K.=~gPmcҠ /,M=^uMjwoqUgE3g}-[4@t=cǎ7ҥKً);X$Fm!>ݺu3|SgT$%9H&8pˇȰ]wq]_t2w]6r.2 s.N :G;@R< c+X\j._lbMNN6ec03ŏewн.μ}CxRItuי4KeN>pBOCEotRIn"jl#kH#[ Dc"8,޽{]rUT){RRԾwѿAɫjEE:u|_{WXV\N[)Sݟq. ;ugԮ)]۷7iwQ.2C3Ic/tQ@|GȬrl*.\\qEƪ&ӇNʑzWe8TdnJɄK%PYŸ F~u3fIs%8AWG.[<^/} ɔ8{6MaaevV҆!zaj8]f1Ӧ!CWq.uUU|< tsqToz-#std_x-$='4i=A:Y=wE Sc\d 9 ӯ2eV-K`c(<KK7۷o7Qb dc&3e}94?ݒM0IOUW]e#'[o0pdqτ{->>C9qp>sr$<A8u)SJBJ;tj+ /͛sLԦN_w&/ oDT!wB‰3~ܸqOAg.zqP_ޗ^[t,'z0OZWNQ| TPaYʍNSuM5UZ˨r@qt7xøJ;:N8rT>R]r@GyYx0 yy6]iչVVT| T%)NBB0\$A4NG+*s?7_}iCsv2A#M f #i?_y;3 |}F`?xk+c5m*}Ox0ԟrhh1{_zI8i!ܠ5@Uo^qN%K/m0 (T QmھB#CFzXa>dTUJ,dq_zi6,upR ߼k$:M7dHބtxkA=ДTch)f' ݤf޹Gѧʾ"M=Aj 1?OW]6\llr v@4QWzt9_|3^=} [84(,^qWr;m~*_ |۱H=ݏZTQ6uQXz׭(ϲIlB/zVBߤرc&,J^7bұ 85 rKt`Nu; ¦M卦,}㑣Ixh-T享rԿ6.mm8D9AHyɣJQjS/Vv[ub:i^|hrļXh{ CΤ\4F7r#v@fq[NT{5.&_s^_k/_*x#(z뉣h$X%P)om'SUq8kt {>VPJ9ԥ2g|&\m%r%V\,]~KD3Z'#'z'lj ´Gxbr{މ\,F-μ cWRn5r^ڧF`$ ui@-gh8*N|65xKСCsS 81rp:g)KHnzυ7|; #XdrXx~N2k`2՟Kq4pq{ L('I+7?:etʬί"\gR2Vkўq>fZerehg/GH]%Ul,Z,uEIo'Ry9^G?IU*(:K}9n7L{;#?T)PP^wTZq/y/dp8u#D8e[ X 8>]5bJc C;,PE`ʥ6,B-,BG*LM o,+ ?[[ ]?hQHncRI zj 6t<2zB٪$[Zbv(ܬ/i߾}]dԮhh-,,bV%Mo+n)`)`)P4 XQ4zؖ1K+0bm-,,F+ΊGbk<,X X X X ZP, `)`)`)`)> 8* l\KKK1E@URTYfywޅnǭBC2i16w+ ytQ'6< )'Yd/9:[_~1Gj&ADj} ?mr&uln)N9J+&[X9=nx2tCjjAC;aؾsve9ؿg/ JDV!dfd_f8Ӹ$&%" )HHHBJd)_*rʨ^tگv>Sb=l!0O#XnFcghꫯ OTS:'U&J3%$@&yb)Vj~, /Eau0屠xKį6w_/V^mq`$U+jeZ ._ @dNq27xWI7a\?ס,gpgdf{y߭ҁ55q"i>dl݃ҕʣjh̍6k͎2}]*Y ToR )qCO2K] 4\xK&Րf| gk/ 1A:K#yi$T᫴2<<52Ti$$$D$X52<:h.|Tfauis f3ϟk_2UjS N4$NAz|.QTRU ˅;Ӱdݘ~h6@]}6@гCW3W,*6R *@#lg1cm?<3:"Qw,νދъ dp Edz9k xN)x=EF?QAyW=rLF4 {Ja<#6U/lSACh-,0,Z E Qiq9^kdn^U_t5'(3~^_S,>;ĥ[R:-۴Fnfvyǯ)>X A(|F*!FaX{L8 ~yk$2ӧXd)EKVS3f 6ހ<dv L }y~$$Xdnޏ?WƟ~ӗ^arb6'L`<֯_o^XF,?uT3\ss\Y61)yJ$&d+:Q ">Z {ҤIf ՓSH%dL߲e &Ol{T>O0 Ya}Ÿqa[3yMu]F!p *ꠙɨQaU;dL5V/^44wIA֘isDt4dپb>3<7RѰE36d:dQP 'zA yO 4U67pYWPż%t2Ku$/)<݃ fIIñhf|l:Iz:hV$5[=̙31ID;ӾC8j.\҆WAx_3蝵6?!M({(Æ3fF/`ٌ{jY@T48hJNlJQ[CCZႂ þ\u~$''E4{w v9dCЋE+`w!9u/N*LX+hT/ՔG}ӶSPhMj` n㿨ߢ 2 *-EVX3WyM{]&U^7]jK`)Pb~!iT\Q־}rtRy #~ G2ޛ}[oC:tu*$[6XM7iTRϿ#0^{DÖz gaF)Kg^}~?$( xݖj'ڧ,D)U86y 'Ƶ]lDR ٬Q)ͦ><ذoHA1 *.!,v5Hf=ꔭ/ʨmgP ӖSmZ _CZg,Wv61-DD4k m*R܌Q\klRm!!"t,>$$鍀Zv mﳎBŰap7Bqm`TP hFRZ=ۯҐ5*ZSdZEuWWGc}!D( X(J`>xgn1>2a\ҸeI-DZ q]h KfGLz3i?NGƙMd+(Íh:d8>Y}A8-` XQ0}[ Ș}=wb7_#}QXD6u@nˎW 5zw8R 1һ wڸA11o8+(:?_yB:dlI],F`o~׷T @ٜm<5y.`QрzXQ#Cj=N n7-k;EuY vou Q7zN3m9w3)ƛoL[B(`g"[xQ^ɳvq!K@u{/L2%VY;Èf ,R-Bsg ^ ??_l!r(`URb_ #T.g P=6 >@BdP hBq(|pw`)P)~~p\7([? #mP r1y.}ۥ o_Z 8 hbh/#9ٞ6. @P>HylٲC9 * f% *?CգE8ê"=W^c3.WıTbܧ*@TUkpPn}'.!ek{O3wB)`Fi^h .D}eWlFqq ZXz\\-nŭǍN}yIa5A+v{QWQ/i&t>txҸq~" ջzaK3߃ }N,QKBKpo/ pJp$$a/_-sdDejbPc/W+ 49E؇ ܑ7<6y&/很;~>{: X:ZZ҂ pʙtW!pp;&2ߢ\6QtŦ@8=raZ[ԯ|x%+U٭&xǶ͠6זZTj愸KS]Pٕ jbɒ%A=?x|3f@=_2dI2džLm1fq[Fo?X{%w}Vwu~6=u·uO mrOij/6)UQ>ưcYn'|G\e¦ Nnn:6lis #:6>m.v7즧 u }BkK+78Ka:Il-xh>ljOEͰMxU8G=nG!g09Y l0uMNC*0p3aQqع ÈMP[ \mufK`3Zǒ;kO#pLÅELkF4?F AY=bp̬9-7IfؽJiJϿ7؎w+'ㄕcHv:P3RUhwسk)}Mnپ0gƚb~\ ܵLmRe$c@gZ[ z[RQ1e^rw lSV|NgJ٣$祽pzܜcpn*͚o13|ee`PE6`ܮ1s I]&髾B !f{2qV |CazǦYxM[poT_#(NᓚI;7M${g_|MIH\sd.{h=N)^ҰʓyeS'MAt2yUph?:=ke)Mٯ1Q_UH%U*Ie $2p`+,w) 8]ǒѯ6,Kی%rnH` c g)W.Ѻgh 3Ig,rC.w gGզA>ysI'VMư8CFg<‹ gVUsd!x#x-4g. ⳺ދgCyV3.*.yQrU L3*=~JZg-oWr}m8|BA_0P\Q d'8}we!8#8t-4?hWٱ˳G|o^nG -8/,nj9Xq!a7ۓkdڔ8 C3GP%] m'Q]wf![ctw,6DAqjBGm78?4j+5=%rοx'QT$" ]|K^Wy.fFʼ[*Էko!`gDÆ m4gdF^ZZUsEQ.< «]SV8gL nF|-u9=Yd^HuH}=gO,]4v堚тn6`x=iuKpnW1ewp{Xd #?q5~݈z5蕅đ1{1K<6q -}ROYHb ߕuܘ Q 07͛Ѷk'|-4DZ(4KUOТq IU |&0hH_ciHU,#O|`jUE-+*40 4i}zVnND U6FNo-ƀ= ل"abF)S`WЫݎ"ٰ)p(VZ*ܿ^wY$,K}8Фp mp8H(* .5="N>;܅YطoZvn]vÄGT+.=+պ\jgDE܍b#;¢۵gP0qC8QV}Nj/~% 5My<%f|Ia/g7,,@7aY,nDTꪣvn!I%Aa?sPNlggav\/SZCORrD< qwؙ$I49xh"vَ[}{1{M7V`MD3g>oJE~G\=3鱙'}b dp8ؗ sQt׈DܙAK8Xs0AK='K2i <1 n#FM^&iѫL^ Go2v5:c] P\al_-V {:]? ^^“(]Cv(ײL'~0>Y-Nk8&~:tF~/ёh0ijіxTkk+W~[<Uչ_5+O ]*i)J0Fw٘hUEi ϗѻd*o +_"D]0bC O bB^ F^z4[۽\ ȯ%2B=VzXZ\l#uYtGtm7*t_S'}}$$vYd {.pb ]䫾O."/ PP/`?sx1]-PsH͓/<(,J:BG 6էц[ R@DEFG{K+0riQݻ''bn$^9Wڌp74`)/_oԏ@1qD軷ঀE LxG*Bu&\ǰ>I*P+@{kT V`QQ?RUDs}:͂bOO3-oC<U cT#y6|{?Y~A&hXg̜9{mIX4~p: _ʊ<4nm[fkA?ƒz|..-nVO?-ʹ bzQ@**+/3E"mi58Zd>&po+sNK܄Y AiD#g-ۚ  ILz#j<ؚ<ɩɃ{ŭMKnlɔ6);v| ܢ"՘ʯ: spP<RUy'<(=+Ш93- qUwURR?'p#Cj&cEqFF&MW艣-|_WE& $y ' tZ Tf]V__q?f)qTs{€Ss94g?*VYVoYOi!Mey/Q@u?k0],`~s r ݉WI!q;LG ls3I~YٿnXmv9D 4_| k:=|&4F6>kOL$~q"=8m sHֵdRGNz`>gLX]SKn~SSp]X7}Ia!p)I&Rzw|5w|WS`]W..pqW `≠#.hNz"S:XGxCNGT#fGn藸O(QCF !J y+)'>BM#ؽ}Q F*$H9p OYNwëdܪ(` Ϲs$;Sag:]p4Bݟ<Gyp)Äg  {+0 itMCлN!15E ?` 3*Q  :̘a%o5AEJ8?<(ߡT54UET? G$`usqT2{!-T 4_Y!3# Fz߿@|BU"_~ +sڟ)V28;4wxAUAb8H coz/N=eOIqWF/ y^9@D^'s<8\F W3=q́-/g2{CB4r?f3B%؍_+h(,"a%?#g49 ^_M؂'o Е$!2gVqEQRA1˺mϹ`4H;ÝѹYq1u(1v8RIDAT7ӐFb2k9̞n~`n[2yhMGwQ]}ɼ_gzV=&Ih꫔nhg.٧عmiEFu>PP}M%nUN:Ll"VPnzRVf54ꞛ[ߩ?^Вӭ%%#V—1 vB馣⡫.$MԼ'M]QSd0Jͯ|)o F@~i/K. ?.V"zfj*lߵhF]vIxZL瀶 0L_W*LX(N~ic~NUG8 'mVaX*g̘nT+9C"Gӫ%;Q~ [P 6@> ~ `F-1ˢX7eAT/[KOn26[3,.bV`@_~EgbDg1wnQY r0_:VR3!>F |~Νغ~?GQE9)%^MرcGpcV`CYmi/! L/p!.%J`Ko1Y8 u-?"XO-KpɇЩU>wB-H%^q\ⰃJ3L{297^-(P(Wթ7TB -O1s؀|?=_ lF>4hN%nGŹb-ɨ#GTNzs*Ն$'?푉zL$m`{\vyQ׌ \m/*\|." PB& ~[x"~ E\`F>x"}Yt?v!1ԣUhC_{׽ᎽsqI~ShJ,pn}0QՓ(d_k΍-\(l6"4~֍h Ё Q4ؠ~yS$.T(`PՏ՟կj _0!F@yV`h,XJJuXf?裢inJ^LW2#ڹLT HnQqƭ39I)noj#YŜ{ȝpґFY{$<4{nN>͊UIJTܥr\uQ$Pޞ.)\@59'6u~ Cr?O8.]`}W^*Kˋb+i<<32BW*&VwtJU$jσr:! ߃˰ʹB_ogd?rV?rY2w+u.4hJu"Њe|F z  Sty!>[sFop `2ii9j.E~knCL|p ҋY¤'IssO\M .,AZ;䳌D'b K,Az>DYдuhS% D(YdY>+MfՑ c@ޙ`t>gft4?HCG9 xj-2vR[_m)d5+t=LO`tV(=wʩp{&cdj6X[i@PY׹KXܸ{Ipm9,wӳ`US/wf2mMܿI?7\r,qnPU}RWy;ŗPPVyAA|"ր߂7RSS9R~$~'"Jv+|!ֽ~# d|IW9?6{f9&'ϟJSIUt>B=w󫑹K7$j2>d[݇"orҸG4;J`YO|2dFJJ露$(N6CAxP txV Lb8T:ڶ.03 9~h1 (c +6nXYò(y[Q= u80N̻^ ޼3$ĉߚ£sz3a'&'Lj! k8gA9υ\qC9u>HzS`nԿSю>TP9O).!(U(= })g,KrIx)}DxTHrg4ʨ J bxǓ*DPMܔ^ ^ݹId왃WzJО1=W$;Ip(Sǀ'Z7#]ICc޴.eF@i9].pVoT"jG[k+Fq 5ͦnf:H ]NZ b|ɓn<fP!z{ 2HK3(nV/=2ɛđ-gpL׎x6w3@wY0bqlWwj]Oms~GʓXnl)7#{:crHnF!ӅLT-i$5WͻijvbD4: ijy;Zg/lI)r <@aTOrڻH!D׿be*Uq &%7 P,sIPxdGte(&`*RiAD#$'GΜͧ`1b.0w1fw8hՌW,a @dDk_ ǑRo :Ӟa֡$ÉRKM;}J2 $w'떥;D gQ<|ΡPN;.VQ@0XK6QXZB8ezSkp gA}b&ƃKiJ߻v<>N+Pfe8Џj+Y@|rcg6l'"S0ޕ9L;ܻ#W1$^QLAټcݤů~5gt N) #D;:iH)V0Fhs]AĔ$Jmc.>J7|:vQHHăKB437xOѧpIF/9;2@^zs+0|P,T29J=h0ڐ"3)~gK^ bђKo9xuOsŧ<eӭvTKa5]ׂ YH&" -BhOn݋|T(Ƃv^xdo Z@orq,zgq1jp%G%F4A,ž 5I18dԂ7Jd06G޵Uk |'),.;HGSt}#2R:TRV`YsŔ<- wfv(C:._M-@wr6Slq yrYx+:ޑ aD jۃDh+Cj-[2+|/o|(khAWt}Eg[t# JS%i0|"DXV`hp.](CmZN{+ϥd]V+%8Do2 &Jʆ MҨ'ۣO`dPos3\2d\h?| Hr%@go;:p@ٰ\b ޵jq!(Hp(4iUyxnShEZk3NBGCҟ5*(yk gnp6t|C]vЋ"#줥/ T@v=tը" =f~xL0oScq#b4328fXEvR{ o `9Jo޼9WЙ? +$+7u\]܊ S˘qxxqBnC=I4[yRp&_*!E?Ooذ!25Ȭm>*A}\r''d4[Q;n# Mg y|ij=5s+shyso{9ax oˁ:Q =^jW?- b^;*PX+0|x||=aIyPFj K(8X~O132^TG_Q;*/nRvk|ZEXv3мR>1"0Z9,fdwxh'qJo2[kd:LĻ3N}}OM m3s%ܨ)w~ɴS3Y;Ϲ?6%t\/"7(d^~֙fwMf ܸ)V}~t1Ir/V[@*>HDš=hѲeP̭ȧeliȹ ?F1%O9!`"# ;:c&{8̚ Fo8眞.?-b?S%vt? Lw7pu!>*y #hV#({,Oajǣ$?H2-$y C!!(IݺvW=IE4`l69d.kXr@@:>rZhJ0.RsGKD{ xQ>1Hy  (jשz%08P;.LC 6PwT _ڥKP̭ȧe>hϧ7K(ft q"js8N`~|)Wovo:< @n[Mwew:) {e=8ʯti擐TGcOf@ki2iX>MԮʕ%c\PV;#ݻ _8RL!ơ$ёltFqdل2w9Gm!Lx)v>Nwd/8Nh[ W+1lQx% ( *Ёh0 h{pdo1"U:hNJ7>I+,P3" ׂ\;{MO>}Г+0 h޽{#i6EdWa\6+u_B{F% !rM\Q5[کjLmb(5j:rbEث)HoV>OabBF/*V^|,dE oH9߃?hlTX+0 i' (oc4-Z H߫{A7cA 4'($V>[38>bgݧzkKw['0;1D BW^HZMMg|sZ~S5]!"~2-hPOoO(mwDuq&ѐRRRPH{=,w F9N(Жe}~~Z@db"DH\rTG-_m9K"IYP(МԿTo@P ̭ R+vro~Ď(gƘ7"oLD790Dg:0 {}V`4 =a<{DS0hBj)~v~KPX( ?;sG!1}+BB|l{G׽vbqA%^yΈ-[gKU٢~h}_F>h4zKpW-RGkL7\b2iA&B#%J(0]nԕAD3"4#Gv&h]:" ~tiwN,,6ڽo╢~ s}AP̭(Bki;3<zMREH;׿8O#I(0~R1 x+tw]߽7(bOk<PVS9zenJ8 <WZq.:7X,BDwڿ(~{t並 Ϟ n!;5~XZQ&n޼9:u iLQ&5p#y`\c1 7\TE`?:ܾ#Z W$XQ z>|ǽHp}:I%a#SI032бXjgڽ(O܅z)]'~~OЋ(FuZY;θz<kNu<2Mوr7"p376u;wݱetF#<(BIfeW ڢظ];ZޘU%j߶z_Om]~~t"Õx.| d)<{hwGٺ jCbe{'2_eP(vUw+BܾY s1!). ZAқKƤWvϨτuC]HW~E8R]վjg§iJ.d wYߵ7] ܹ3?_rG\o[c ?v=]KT/X @c^jW"nqGꧡcpwm7\߯ݻw'0a/`Fؕ~/č>-CF֓WfA:A>5$*-H,*3Z` u1W^AT?ʬ/ߗ_^E}{ÏŠPf]rAф} Տ߯XhR0K9tCƣ܀ߦd\0x(ɀ#93VA*fx hAY=.zaP:~ ⸅X4-K|a^~j<H'ӍVH`IxgI3 17pևJ[REX\,pߏepC+,2')aQnigťt]\ I1|NocE9Z 'zS'")p. |AS:F} ejy¼ҁ7cFgGO{wk? XVKKN!ux'&~~LwR/Ց^TM*K&vP{]#:P{Kѣ^ {8RnF O^ye[q4@08D8y$/Պ~@M2G~;CYE #' Ԓ0K}^~3 GwV`dw_y 2 h\7@QqX<eŨ 74mL7pZ؛Ԛp#~)7` >ԏ]Pt Xڢiii֧'V E."|7a$K^P.yN8 Ͻ벨*d^Pr wiW:*=?JϩCҰ]+̋^Fg"%%%_cEqjrXz5v$% 8|,سpy\] $'ћ187`7 L] tURI% a 5!ҲtݠilAT7qΨ.N[t\Qte 4@:, YHH T*@ݭ1[U}WտWw3wx5O9L3X_HMnhʅpNߢЫz~¨ g޿?x.,w?aTϟhB~`#_cDZjT[U' d4]>YDZ4NSs1jw:^71]s9=wz>~u+ ah9 a[P%mx̓j}:ann YSœΰ-%$2؆[nBZڊ{{Uq,k0k:+ f٧ͺFsɥc .ČzsSg%΃O/δ#wJSHi4 |H %3JCpۉ_UXڪg6Ԩr Ǖ文!#3+i^"+ 7|/g 4$F5VP^Gh|Aoo`o 2[@6 V-ԬlFmň̈́C! =PΝQcQ|;r pR:OO1Jꤒt/ {E_sȦI2߫|ثZF+ë&V_m[|8בБ,ڱ= {w!AE׶B05:-w7p-D1'1m8p>=УGƜQ a5e^`ZRui0;cI38yS3d9| Z6)~ b~ {bv``I!:sGll,f<8_!i /̶,6g b(1aNlEjijPMB0-;kc̘1 hBzQR9ˆSA_QRi8֙Xx KbIXT8v xؔ(}yű{bZ=\y.݋Yσa&xs5vdmB:Vc5d[| 9|`˜bZNQ?s~>QQQ?/(ba(,]0{T:.*ƃJ9r1Ax {$3F3áGP$1Iw3+XZ{qq[z߃<1117n Q@NOO`S;jUP|((8|3o X5ŞoNd80Bk$CI #q#PV9}pFmIiBKσ1m,\];"{X`:|>%ntEmZ_}?]< tH=b@u #ٟF2;fIGұa4$W8$55wOFW92qC"`:VS n!:8,y4)MbTPf/o0MC9ԑ;ܥlAuعq+¨l)MB@IyJ>qdB8un.T0-SUPPo(B85BE_q˖j3$x!3Xu%Qva eX5dFie)hN.sԥKpߜH/cM2kۖ5N(8C2RF1B`aDCCZ/!|PucK ӈRstאǔ$gH0H5I|ۑUm9ܙ5iM>Te}; ˯ey&Bc6f3ǰA5Ђ3}VܨI&y-s~tR.5gqkm`mPmeX%g5j1p[k Vjg+r&rFX|Q9Vb :PՉJK4=9ESz|5:|GL&{^c%ƪ~>|#J7J)G@ yN@)LzUB j1^5LUS]MmU%9xD|`cًQ6ް!HY;0Td"EܺS^,+ x~Rauw[bj"3;rq:VDGGsK6! ؛aڼSp,r7G  8ӊMaݣ)3vK ) u!꿪 Y"Ł0х(dni+E;#pTVFR^)ƎkC@,rOm{x"꟪&'M??!X?+R+-|q$% K V LԤpKu|G23u{dt{L婣't PYw19PǔBG3-F3sSO>G^sb6"N kch@S, ! -T!֯_ ܟYc";n-Z}tHo-̚5%"lM! ]TM?=ߧbNMjy5F~J~~"EBcu5V40_XXMb` e&U)@S"Ql̂qYLw \:uR HXBjAr9sƫس,4HBCaQUO_z qSah"}E@eU9tbNnz+HfԄco*/zKxJAWp WJ]"n,+O*8/_'1w\Np'mjܖxXݶ$huDաMYI+ td,} DFF{a\V꒒^~ ` IeqBӞIӦa5jF@ãկO81[dʀgBc(t׿KU$2 D9 {P_7e* "p0r#PVV*;c.\g1at@a+-LDj V BǤ;=qRE ׉hҊ{|P:>wb8|5ПMKēQM?DeD ҍyFa1b_R" FG iu{"-9k ҚB"7ܺSZv&|A!ۜk0.ɯ5GԈ5v1 QM" fD. P\\'OB%H;q' C;_Tw'y2%*ʡ~h4qCYQZN.{~|ΗV^О28 GDDDmr  H숀K*7??BZ$IEvYZP@Z&H?}#m%Or7~7k;nćܪH.~UU~Gb*XϕLQ<k)"(z}aPӧBCC,a\^J! W4TWWTŋ(**¥%(-V5VY~׫̰Z-ZQcR ^>2Ԇz5 mC9ڵG`tlNAPA.]j"Ν;GV6zG@ x$M! RA@pxXfw" <TJZSNNA@G" Z# zD8A@A@C]$ hA@! }t! 5BZGA@0хH"ahN}G" Z# zD8A@A@C]$ hA@! }t! 5lZ(IENDB` Dd,   A? no related evidence Privacy Protection from criminal proceeding Picture 14Scope of 5th Amendment & Grant of Immunity Use Only applies to curent from Derivative Use Any Transaction Cannot for crime related t" testimony: no related evidence Privacy Protection from criminal proceeding "b٪и\A14Hp nE6پfXPNG  IHDRCd!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss ؁`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L1`1`1`1`1P XR L˺u$)))@@ ĉeŊ8N#yc]v.l7+/[l]ч4ٴiSF޽{(7F+ 3|wT} 'W^yE֭+_|uQr}'+F?eɒ%ҳgOKsm!CUVAgqԨQ#d/B>hiѢ,\0d>xׅ~G9餓I&2~߶ҵkWyO?Mng}&g}kNN;49ӥ{*Wret|~+/w;o9#dvosg3fp;8$_ Nڵ w} D9G#OJJJPܝwީp N'(7l3Ӽys'==Ŕ|͗_~Y&w*_U-[6oTZY~I5!!Aʕ+;>#w߾}kDFF233J:_վ~X+`QW9,&p9RT"ЦMYfDXA Fpڶm\2({-XLK3dzPP՞|,ˌ!sͫC7jdΝ2a%GmРA u!Yf K+駟T|֭xP믿QYz@|=ZX??q 8"Hkȷ~+TSGȭ-m?VL6M79rA$Id(}j'D nN?pofOS r-1c￯%t']cQ\d I.]y2|pN:7*+gΜ)5R: S+Dj|@ jX;*]I+ 7X5k.]vC%%!渠b8?TСTTI;Pʫw憼oAƍUzSy晊DEEٰaCw]~a~̳f [oU>#oKǶs91@ԗk^zmRDqԙq1I!ˑGpiR8*om_cOnHaSas΄@&OoF6n(0U[;ԯUm8xb3c< ;8؆4}1范ACea;dštw֭C, .k( d% QiX%E˜Ν;;W\qs:P::@nGIۉAŞ|(ԩSL8 = Ld(*6}yYX{; οDe|ǁ2 tMEXϺ袋rdy衇ܝ`Q鮻R;]]Pf|WwA[:.80 ~}f~YA$x`v('`̡=(9CT_|&ro9sw񄅅'v3?'xBPvq 0@A!'T;_~cq@O=Tb' (wüoC^z9U>aLƇpT\(w>䓦OE1:,.mކ.X5MŦj 7Kj^78)gߧO5{uWϏy{7:۷w $J^`U<jY -A,&P@BuᶅePLb_l*Dl}dV?&J] &NFRŴB J 4#- P & 9/PLBY] A ,?J+*-@&U21棫Ȃ꾨[xH Zxz"=) oXTZq7^X~~DoL'b|QCQ۴/wʱInRwZ )pY( SlWrFH3rJp@_TTۯFQքd.Tq\pќI 4Ć 0/LN4rMH4a#ȒSʢ |,q,hfQ̜@vA~0@,4SKG `7lؐC`ʀ%ku^^Ox4/(U(4M;Kt9QSDbL2UcQMiKrpƣc⨸Qvs5 u g THbDWL큠݀ <,XTYМA9ptНb |A)|NF<D!nj ~,P6<JO[j Ό7>pf-+N}+&j+m f; E+GⓆ:-w͇ʫ\r.n0*_XvQmoix$.4.J= z^䕡 Hqe˷Zz)CZWw\r6Vn1`1`1p`ҕ^ kA u/B@(?(2ǂŀŀŀ@a4&FKB! 8TGG(cjM`1`1`1`1P<SvXk,3xPcK(. oT\-Z X X X K XR._mŀŀ@cfm1`1`1P߁mŀŀ@Ā% F[ X X >,)w`[`1`1`1P.1` H|mK@JX X X K XR._mŀŀ@cfm1`1`1P߁mŀŀ@Ā% F[ X X >,)wP*-xK^[iƀe@)GqJ6[MyMvZl rK@+ (l rK@+ .JJSR 6@0Ppmn"@"1۫ l!Zd?5{AJWMd"9xL3%/C/EV)EVwTj1P0`9 Ja@9VdB%.Ud"1]l"8 *> 0܉$-DBa,XQd|CE6n/F E^?Ȅ Xy1O/j ."[egwE}H7Yd"DS SHϱ"--DF"urvZ7FnXL:Is=RZMiQGV'Gz{n#}iҧ^7y;%eHd-5^T9rHyԣ! v[6+qȡZA|7hx@W)kDv B)\6H)~}.J?Lj42pO1V8<z4p u\d[ch Wz']Ύ"+p)Ϻ잡¸o(z'h!luC=o+¤rhޓI[ϔϷM붿=j}&EE[]TQ%=^KQ9K|ZYZai.pEVb Dݾݳu"s H$&9Xd] !']dյvWb##6K"Y4L Q &^fADC$LPϮq"2"[uVJ+=12.sg=DJ _ i;P5mZdr nDzpTrg!Pr&^9\oM)&. ?%R"s Z\GF7gc⨣KbVݺx,.߃wTL⚂ɶ*߾=NԊZGfՁX "׋ljQH[75Mx> zJdK$fk5Fl b$ ͡TGA}GPߩ;'gŴ[g1֎AkEз"ч E.~! Ւ _L;_Uf$N5KF2:v=רԮV]\ iyNkx,޳Qŵj,'6x7Am_]T^|T ˒6ˤ% Yz:ZNhN$p=jUkʱ V[~%$"9eH)1g7(z"#8ё2`kk9n7ٝ" 7J ORZ|gzU~G"2$6GK<$7V|(4>Z{V~lrMsws?/۞/[&9_nmutTVxT$O.*JUxhDrM~ϯ^^oGWú$CץF 9w.f@>_w̖=Nv=#;e؏'aBڍUYgiB~(rD $r>:/,ȭP7J w4ILllJ%,fgtmVt,8?%ZCKhq&z)@H^Vg@EGq""i:سEc; zN҄7l,Q5Ry{ܣNZ-TwRnjy\2&}8@ 'zl·nߣ{4u,YY0^ڴD@@orY+ɒq95Nj%û.#5[ٴV~0e\Xi\YCktF.@f}VrD*I\#OFz9NGe0}>{-tjuU _wAG]UA# :@֌0w-rXa@R'D~Avn ?nODT0ݙ'w@΂ nk-<4GA'Ĝde_Pđu8 ԕ3md;Zs|{҈A@-Դ" : ؽZ&mo n(:jȠ6g˛]A_O\SIXl T; ܾr*lϾT [y- sU ~X=YYŴyDUǟqh I-t). T.`:f_PwbWOG)@֍t@tq!:LB^^j ӄb, ŏ:̀Lкʘdn! mct iR t#럁9:LkFU|?j9$yNUQ+30٘z\nb,BCɕ: qY"t$To8A &?v̕F%o)y~wwtBNqXI($d*UrvR'>}#GpąM*NeJTޔ >s&\.Wt7.IEO uAQ&]%XAvcVc7vVbkf6kt) 4WB΄Jv ŋgס,0ٮNu  Œ永 DaK:\n}3rh[͌-nъtO%}Z(ahK; 1]b!t2{08i~O 8>*ܱ Oo|^X)۝Zy qc1f}<*mUv۸T!0cߔ؇H.0PPqR-UH,KU\ITq^RAeXa5KBX+|XaVd"^':CGZ*) 4N-ziD6z6+Ws/i&pτQ;t۵b&&s_ %.vox݃1eVǂߡT:} Vg+G]ѯoEz!T 4=Vu+fS1Dd6(La)^rd%ttp #_m^Mm"zlL.W4?A~8ai;f(I^ewX=ƽ.k?p[w* 8~|Ӷ+]%P2Ds&P@>' ;}q(>7|mp31}] ?DN6\ П P O+8Ūo."c".LW;?˭U哽 2.219{@wDPFso27ij6-!-M|%؃ɳ :Vf'aARPw!MzKEIícTL|u UpQiYpc(p]x~|݃.b?IUYéx'R V{t$Ү]0:au,#PN'nHOǦU:_-/*(ؓ*-d*z4'4D]5;ZD6P vWbJb ^ETNxl -JH :bq5,^L+9r<ҡFœ(o+)JTDQ]nVVk76*y]%vMMHC=B׶eܕח.zUΣB# e)sdTVV%[[K(Kゎ;AP eR*KEwV6U6!0`EXvX X X X je,8qbPhvs\}$0/](v|ԛ:xl,켋m%[_}> N5#΀Q06pj\po;lEXES[bY@DqGhC(xbaaBMT1XWU ?[pR $'noY)k1Pp Xำ9+"?t/+ر><,)y*>2T2ش{3uk7>屶cg]jl, %C@ܐqz{1E[ߜ9"tn@5(+7ڮEvb#pcg?5XX` = oy@|O7>.Ho}tHWP0S4W\#< s AS޴M"oQt t쬷b(^³ǯJ䥗n 72nHL9Oy `aJWKŨN?]̤(u?g)= 9&5aH< IT{K<<*6kI:v6b(^2c>.G8 5z J"lc0~g"~*6VD&M҇B'0cEDck?@_v>O\޽"?,s:'GxO"8x:tE4kyM*{-I Ԁ5UD[]c܏5oqpğttr#!֪ wY K@n1sG\^[IqqD@7{=[Rt"qq"' ҷC !ҫ|RdDT@<#!CDz+Xudc rR,D%%E䯿4xE}r.-[D΀e%w; p1ݝ#Q%xG<-+XOA8 fwԆ, /"vI898y@' `&W=r8Uf3I!]RJ&zgk C|r$28Pg|7cIhN9E?g׭](Z(Y [vOVb`cΑX(oyV5]W€g&.bʡCE~UTcE}%Q˵˛DEN:)i)މ{ &s 11*UK2E>Š $FB]ʴi)u&<"w^.~ pyEL( c@ ca]$@Ѐŀŀ@@9S$@]#/PE7Y~>[梸 Hdﾋ;T]8IHdNM+"7I/PFqp2yj3iv\WJƌ[Bɖ-(D=rd$0&Dn0Y!,mM<ذŀŀ@f2ܣqZeC8M Sxh2eX(0JNU&ڌŁ|*.alHzz0 2!W0j[ʢy"qA:8ES~Q׮}05>V[ucs #ۂ4蟖 <@*x0艶C($p0ؕe1Gs A}8]ɈhoqՖi1,A106l4/ˏΘFqb\T1qrnnӏUT N+옜! )kg~ol{~l9 /W,x{o1Pesex"Քطlc0Zo[v9^l/Ss=p$oؘDNw{ COD guav}= yŃ=,9mpx?ccqɋ3i!b σ[>(Zx* h7oig[^ֹ 8%q.@mؗqӡHhͯ:uJk1P,(fBxo:{.hAcR%HӢ C6&qrr&_RLu Çl}5p?{̎! LoKB[`GW!؏周d`'/;ԁ." 'O9-Dȏ[~vC|@LRix۵u#]+a X+<|%7(܃@~}QxHQ . $ߠ3r-Eѯ_Du ~%o;f˨)$i,޳j8d;m)è,BQ/_*BŻLw; Sgn噴)gAjtIOcb'T&xv6ǐ v'Ds*,]`$qDJ;!!ڇE'SONHM:Ym 7 0OG0cBԃ~hP$(#7Aߛ_)"1]٪ ӛv*7!Z[FΈ`L|XǓTIeᗎ!#Z NB;ۣO_a ~?\iWP} ZE슱iXz6>{9v;IO "]s#)zOG v:DQ{?֮I^(ƺJG!Q:=3LCC9Rd&nP#G_InII/t~;Od.ktQ-XNKbLI1xbf9M{-9,4Ta{:t &CEw $NV3{'XDsjе<VE|{B[(Y|CEjF-NMq_\E7oZeه~[ZmETyW0 yoIJuS !YL9̻D˫lrL~voܿjD9/Ukϔur<77~u-BKoZCH'wwAAB@UtIo_M ~o*OLJ#Gb"j=^pk+IHWFG6VmF20OV$"2tvfnt|)Ydؗ_2*k[\EH;Q &Le9V1^iq& }h"ȹxp‰sHɕb#W$Vk<u~:Wjԅ%+ Wm"ps 3:O,lH:h"ԍx 5HV\5Nː_''Qxj#ER'=hnxXP͑-3(s+Kc+h3=@Ed ѓ[܇h}m2iyqhY^ӓyC5_).墅/tyzoX`Ɔ_T|đlK'ϯ^'N_LٻȬUjnp>-~U]~LݵLf'ݦ3b ;ɻϷMTq_ W~>S._lKW>:N[ v.WIճ'1~>K%oA+K=ϘeMJ|I)e+xښSbv)s!k4S ĀU,i=YE\ABF<і1*MKߕ4*+Z8g^r^8í[;NF]8}fq˾gh&CM8^ç8W͎ӧns|٨Qv 8~`KNw8q&Nt#u/qFfk6w#{_wnI['Щg SŎ܃:Q-80LLWn~].~/%8Sw湻&}e=lyׄfLKr|sïNLgߝ!kQ_2zi3tTSnQTT|wTV}+yaV7?M&^ĤR);g=X=&X?:+Ӱۖ}|_ϗ֏Ve ^ʻ69ڙHM NwzLv-wΝ ~:MILOV1wl|p+?Sp޾CgfJu;qGjgy0 7Sv8gbܗ+PT9~LNJy9Vkk. !gAY8=7\`U"Ss\^nŝao湻&}e=lyF=M@݈ߛa%6.%9ep+ /UFHt_<tR֥tZf9^ Fe$'Dm)`,.5:eB"yEK\Qu#nF.o~x#07KDSy;h&¡~X>Py]Sϝz~\UVp'E.w.#jR] ~D-9QoR9*[F9VC8?PxR %q(pZC/tH"CLC{eW0tvr×"zPLOO\~~Q6rK}wo}!۱tKO @q'a?^r_q E(|փ\F#7Buv)XQ>?8WZ@cG^uno}e얩 6\rVeȭNY+IX&N'~HwHv'~m"p3(xFeH"6%j-OtxoyH-`د~N3oy'%9wyS=Go /(̸7~<[r{g1JBQ3;7-yW^{CQ b|e&ySceg;v.vs`N;r$E;[R/A@IDATyk.U(*>TQ?",#uNĐ7/}2羕8cT:fs zӟN):lU⣞ݭ U*?V9.uVPT65~*u/GL_)7@5肜$iw~ۿOc%lQX¥EF<x{kgPIo\ΛbR1Va.(qAUBU0 09a _@D!K \u246H72ɘ2ֽXSfDOÕ|u3cfi3 *گC_}U5JUfxFN V&T⫆z`kV;m Z,*GNUK r$%K*'o_^4;~ʑ~m@b@J܁ݱz8ݤlE qEG"̳kܮG&HefwÞa-<>hQS[:q+y O]O06\y&4(78 McOca~kv$;h2:W=oz"h nAdAf>7x,tqBhy? TWu… W A3&QgڣNoӞY={arnpyuzz@)`r nsc #;wSNj w"DP&/5C{6Q%ROYwCj*,垟ٝiœRB\K]H|*!rMpR:l~ e(&# XG0bV[*B]@k` 2K瘵Ϳ+?U* n{]o-#TJ"Qu^ϼ,&MyE;E sz:m?\t/C\:89r8rz ;;bJ"@1xw߉pz+ɵ3"".KV]uƉNY0q V1 {w:tA ~#?w Foir٢Wf{W~"7,}GΜ|_yxgРho=9c$0rb'{N_A^nFW7w, v x&';c,AZ3vOϯ>zʥw'˓'½|ӗZ(:wWt}7ܐY4g;l^o8ﾛ3 |qfpsMjiT{VZ/O]~~?P{_ K]ѓlݮc©ϋY6:&// x͏G6~=+D\B;qiIۗ\zKls\? _&c0ҕ ]y0x}}Ϛ)&pu{\zfLߵBd ]~8V!4Usش{ {c =n*)j.g^xn[!#R1?U?W!݂כ.E[Ӱl95!GPjȑy#}0~~u_?\B"<=V$ߗ. dk88w|na?/F'g\Kxٺnny3  6YؤG<~*PܘJ.]Ӽr nO]tAﲄj </"ɀXu_|qgT`~Ywz]I8}+A{ctCsn$O?ϼO?Pj;ixK<\' .ߠ0sXhlo<>PAn9X<{iO7"W\!O::4c0 /c?/른F !CD(2#QZY@-vzƉuHgfy5i(b߶q1fDԕ5{c|TCS`Uyk'K++HL EY $* Gddv>E%5'cgqdP9ܜ~>wOv^\0=u n^ಢQbڸˊeDCʼnrA宕eCv}RJumGwC_:L3;.XR?9߸<y'9/oz{ R\<}$0@{?s32qr t֖ ݟ&t\e9v{<35G}q[\)vdsAmΖ[*DG*[F4L(R Uem_m@Y~^o zȉ rKjx%Co٢_}K@L~w[|^iK+l Hia-E)倯ގ~ V/t%)cЮEJ0*I߮ J4G6F6@y@>{ͥx ^*eC5=GџbkN ؃#`K@hD ;{ \~yxiC.d@Zy1c  +.;?p{5K' C8^H+AXu&2rk6Nv{Hvذ@@Z8=(v&ZLm^PB9F s<͋-]џ 1pJ6]zLI0qdQO;/v#=^`b}:벸x_7v?rc7Sq^iP"[:.q7 .=Wo뎅''״K/vםm9p8p7QL ~O@cWYuh&W4:; ssH&ҝaBs4LaRF=9sb=uE\gp{u{u6ofw L[0Чp࿵+5p|Lp-BXziEs VсMڭJ "+`lyEѡdz<%w҄ݸ]w&vevW^'oC@aVptT xƔ.юyOb!bVGk?SܬGQ?dE,Woz+\nd0@7Dz1BWDN9Eo4J\USrlN}D0"&Yr'7/p u]A,ց 6ϺUj`.bF7 mׄ<鲞OCy!r!  wK(O a䡹kQP/H2DJ|ga^z6ra(_3Yԩ:09F4n}q&!字 `{V]H4đ;"jzH D5~ä(")6QK!U7Vt0:;nQ4Du+xo~s_&8`Xš|%7;k5)<;ZSӼ$2r^!E:@XCN.wzn+ḍB].Pw݅8M|8e敯$Sp1&dz p9!%;ܱƧjR% 9$]]oK0B]v z;#"t<= 3fMu@Iy.z }Ah&l|+ڪ"+Y'Ԥ=c_whQOۈ+(o<Nm<)0ĉtyH!x38OkI;k4ڱ\.'|KbI57Bdy7|! #/Lqg(gp~er5rpWZmh9|}qrWd䳭g}uw=9={q܂"+q#Y WZ74Pye^l%04t3m wr<I[g> -KWWTvyS/om5PO|gƽ۝.S`R[ʣqU<=>3vo&%T E>/Cؽ["X}n١i!7jgPMԛP/C+rHz/ |;z+\<)"#u>:\bEL=ҕz-ZQV0F ajhcdϼUTngG68\*AUqti]8ٽo \x}MB<0~1T&/6~xYMo]7PP!%ρSwՄ!&MwGnu"܈Eqg'j,y~OO\˓G}B'g76N_Ԏ 4jnq sR$&\b;W*Ԅe0%m=Sw.&*k~da7N0Tz-7 Zw`IhV.EǩnxlYTWDžk|,{J(2xFuHD)4DXY[eb2\,z:6~ sY#l6 FI(ZĔ 0Y) Z͕w {/.nz   XynT5 ,;sWpa??~e[;:V>CFuffiZnPue+e-bω Ac۔"yTt 7†ޖ`6!қ+j0[QmD N]KR͈Ez5]"Vڽ SsM jpv$H#MLO,6MY»?OEZ xPsDQĕ*a"\<L{K1:]klɹz_~{?±Q!g﵏S՚m ,S5RumE_> meeX"E QMOb@(~޽=?iq7=9e1 q|-&$LjI1&}I\=H$n~y#n鱘W0A? I^{z'p@?]0hyuo'Tǎ xQ]u[h'mp۩#B?َW.P}v]ͯ7k?ܳB}o._Pn~cS,6JSfԓ ?o)T &=IŎ6 6-zbK~ʹ'ËL|~ ?1p/Ք_T␂$%`6h6PXLf5NN} -2xG/$ʵ5yډb HF^ܪ(82 N2&hz5@5;a*E0 Z%#T  Ʃ#FnZiu8ר:gѳ. XC3ܺX{|d-p{Yez%p @1!3YK҆ʝ toj_ad2w⨁ۖ#7\^="G|ID-B8 b/ y+Hk|`G,YH*z/*:ky#@{K/$8fȑzfVW@!rxmX;ٶnerCڵځjTX#a R\^|NƤ 4k lesPi~uhqfJhjz" .?&1k !#zg- Sq{8~Xo!aکyR&o(f`TB%4{!f߇;.0BZE6wgI$,p;df{+c7m&R RE@ɏwoM4HGI I8^|Q;YW$u17>EgE 8#M&{7 Yjϻ:,t;PaWnN^+h萢W76%2]nDir٢WqYMg%VOA^FDW?;ę8MTS,u75_Fȑ3v1~rEogF&/QD786W؎q GA;=g>M=gܭ52 ^z=(Yق^p7m9q"c7ov:`4[VƊWmNpy!@3bMJТ@㐐y\ ]jQ# w7/|EQ4=_I䠚v\&-5e]5+z h룭Lzw XH 7ܺYjTT'ps8ݢSaLߋVfeK:K1!h7wc XU,BT0dwߡF39ngXѤ? MO WW㡐 I"FJ_)!I*%MRK*S)SR(ݹ9νs]gZkYwYG ̖}M|8mmը4Va@•-\b!Qy.H3g@VzQnxbMׅx[hT)34Ky(அtOFeQ֣!?0e }QP5{QP°((q ɒB7~}z[\L/R@,C$GF.Z(*Ն$@$@Is@!LD䫺?|A#*Rn+JL*cbPQ֫vwTDk6`fZ #-ɷC46J!Fy+(nB]9nNz$UDr̯(/ S}Ƭb 7^tB>^v<ٶ#wqRu1d{H(@ }JVT7f2ʐO7ʩ,!++Κ/k-'- ߈g]8~tSQpxvoN,F"/c! c]8'?I .H//$X!fj<#f׮]Zl~вeKs%:*a7nhڵkg5kf|̈́iy_t(/HqP;{q 7Og K͌3LժUͧ~j4hG}dN:$SJesA1^- NaE;zD;>>#)SƔ/_ޜ}o^x;_Ή'hz-Rx(Na4 @p`ۯY2"ps5s17o6  1oM6yuf/_q3;v4{5N::;YdywmN;4ӢE.ye  % @:u*Vٲeچ)Sl+;d+Tz<{l;n82Z"ʔ1+HƊ֭;w5#F;v]tSwO4D;4A%-'4L5ak{駟TbŊ*jN"=V:~+58L4*-oݺU;.i1}ֹsgE{[`2x+>seCN@jBSN:6NƉ6%R7s+_p;rHU%D92e;+ZZ[?E={jl;a+/Ow2VDuG%ʴA?N"4:ɏPE3E󋆌ǀ; 7/TG4~;Pobs: PgEJ-)'@Cuce`ej Z^|ஂ?r*>\eV:0` _Վ5Jύ?^ωõDQA>6C!@pJT'#k>z,+Es PVvm+SmvСVt/$G-cNy>Ϝ9SV^I0FQnjЍ;f@':vk5z2JNΘ6@ﴶ)A @N`HH (@k3 :U   b$@$ >T@T 2? @QPO&L"z--T ) v,;)hNCQ dHH:-7aٜ4_ő @hν@,ig>3u+x̙&1RE^{\dFZ@Bi:={yv(>E/HdW  @$P!Uߝ;wqgg Ba…qq./͍7h8׹楗^R5PA _cLz ,< hVuFka7x8D<p˼:hc /PIt)_?\OK.2`ʽCj~֬Yz$@&@/+\1DTqhVqn% @$ P 7h, 4IH?C~֍K$}ƾ<+\,#v6o;(:VH ]u]t! jV%,;Ӧ W=իWW׵_/3+ŋ-\XF4vժUš%@)ngQ%TMz$,!,H@;& @RT[&@۷l + bIH (@۷l + bIH (@۷l + bIH (@BзOZZrRB${ ʕ+S&NxWp._۫QFHA$3 >V^w駟6k~:oscQGV'~|$@>&@>d6zh}҇T\bѽ{Tɕ\ry@$. >Ox 6ԩsMӦMSO=e5kfի2_li׮yg4-< ϼfŊ3Pa-Z0]t1K46m|^͚5sӷo_/+>}xAtaʕpϞ=椓N2{Rw%1d.2]]3n'L`׮]Vowݽ{ի|ɶe˖+۶m;vs9G+(k!z\lY+klR{=s=׊4SL<"T4|?q+gذa^Pw}i*+p].M/no{\p 4H0@⃇[}cQGa֭k0i  ,0'O6C5YYYI&ZЦM=޻w{ c!;v03g4#F4XGhРua8_vm:j,ZIܹs F Hsg:H'PH 8Mx:|jWVC*U2W^yelt} i Xn!~SBꫯUnݚkK#A$:K׬Y5U)_|9u0OTၑ @tp⃾]^pN)Z i+,^Z@$-YչsgɤI̯j4/ ں|?wƨ)wLjs#w.1Һ|.frK,T+m51?HC v+^ke%,՘5^+eXQȭHZZ&rV-[+/ڞ={jZM8Ѿ;[85[ygDeE^+V~c7|Hk\Xބz!ǽ{P8+S]%@S駟Mƍ>ŪUs,cQIF?qe]#@qb & x(@<I@$$@$@ Pg  $P$IHHτ1$@$@II '@ c A@ IID$LYLm]Xmժ:rI;]W$@"@*¹q rH XhL1XUbs(.w f @ Pdf̘]e_ypۼys5mm׮]5͛ /`N%) ..?b;RM{=u 0|^$@>%,+:Y+ wyvV4q't[+G}d99rݹs;YGV,jɗ_~ي_C9sXA[|ν[OZYSt9+M xY(OJ]OÊ0P $,~[%B:18 #tM'Θ[ocpmkTH@` EcXSEzn:=}IDAT㎳>v]*/]֭[sb]|?sZ |#Ac I:cQݻ1 yx̘1z̏%c d p K~1 Νlzs 碶FSZb~=;\XݸqZ7nb Vt^ /SWTHEZX%_ժU+(:\k.[Dp^ bdDcx6mڤ!#o?;AY @ Pdv7qp#{nb9;\= GUhi/m۶yi۶:umڴIG,H (@2zEu%zF!yB_~fڵ^wu&;?#Fʸ뮻 C>wCwVPˁsoֹum@Bםsdzg6fbnvs%feH `],a]D?m-B#Kn 2 P7pE+^ iӦy ֬Yc_eA5usp[~}+Zߋ/",CAtq;h LmVVahxP/ $,z$̀ǂ4l٢[ ::HlDpEBx:ub~s5}Lwa\צP^ǎrAyuIJxbo5葰좘$+@]X*fe#j5 :LaPr(@J}L5b5 yyWBhC4xG^H4X 64~y7 )N$@I @ PDt HH*H"L$Ϧ @*(@RǼ$@$a |6HR!@ =% h\2-gIE E@#a:1M$y)  0&B)>|x%0{p +JͶ @ pF,HD$JͶ @ P&" (Ro$@$F iɢHH J:2<IENDB`Dd Hr  s @A?Picture 15"bRCʛ5*ʀ n€_rV7PNG  IHDRW!iCCPICC ProfileXyTMvX%眓 s%Q"AEPTPAP@1!("dPA=ϙꪚؘI(jBB# qG ײ4c[DR|m4>Q^@ AphVh0}/.:| /!>!l `-칃ulu D;C GhCB {`@tm {ǧ_$_3FLJ?NBc<[cFRP& -~཭{E s@o D1ibR-26ŞaֻQ>Qz6Ϭ`?oLC5$:Du؛#ྨ ]D?:1[o3D,E`h[['7o]O.g.m]`]}O<עbmؾFlg@x% oŁvoEDpVE"wMA+qSy*V5cEBX#W$,1~8f3yL^d[ C|= -_̹EwGXA "h5?͈fh9d$Zh dl?e\y[sr(Q~_:E?koM8 wn n=lῙq;F^{ew64{'GxNr /b"cwd2X'ȘdP@ ` 2 aT rqPN<x x'0 X QBt  @b Cz)d 9A @t(*NCP t=~ 4@ߠ_(E@ѣ8P(IJ eEC"P 1)T% 5E͡aS0,+: ‘A8.+:KxWX4-!텎@DAF_B7;/co %#Qa1~8L&Sit"+f2btbGz}l?vXpb85eJpWpp/pp?(ȸdɜBȊj "[#& W! &O #@J/WS:|'~BŠ""5cZ(AJ!#TSRR RjR:SFS|H9BHG Rb 9U"U1MTԂ:$ԥԷihi,hBhtLhihi3h>t.u} __`ecgg(e03 2131`dÔT3&ss=/n= |fhVQV+83lll^l9l7޲E٭ٓϳ/sprpsp</_!_;?~oN t t<,,8-,d$(tYhXRXC8BRVDI$H\O%*//Z*\ %  V.ֿGyO=Cq-Xci_$%%%$KKK]z'M+m,&*MFTKT,ll좜tf7"f=,(=V(k+'+)(DP*Z:Wh {'xHjjG5x4H|ޚUSZ"ZZWhKiGj7jQ9s_5գճ;7ϫY@ !0pȈ˨hXq ɸiiٰyy08aR2ҪjZzu M͊m;;av{*{W::88흫]\\>ʻfۍ-;;cdA$-{yy.xx.Q)U-S;7_?p:`10l `[Aaaab*E &UQPԾhzU'F8PXzli84= SI^Iy;u t`{2_rFKԠgiRiiK) ]$fFfV=|6 ՛-];;ITnq#OJ=ut<3DZCk_*)H,8av0pȽXIɘLO/Y?zT,Gw3gr=\McO^uQbMkUnFuh%K555yQc.\qwUjKx]E=c}5p-u7LnTY PHט5%4-4782ުx[vuO[;yww3nK|?:>|ai]Z]=nVDISM==5*6=W|ҧڿ ^|ACC_O ~6ڻap{##D>ԏ*7511I)iYOsski>}Ukς§oG|^[j_\Y YYUծ_q6D6Z 'E_`BJ':Oܩv mCz(-X ͌cpRdN{,%L }B/PXz؏sqirB]EE9D)P U/"c%#Y!+EvOJu*Zx՗{ԼhܯMsWV\?!HØxѤǴάܼ¢rcbjGmۯ;9gr+>eq>U^%9> ~~rA<,!TpRxx_ QǢc2c >UR\RcҎe$;4w2K "䢎>g~!߹c}mIS&%K˔eψ='UaR~~QՕZWT֙;\s#f\ƴCY-ZnUiyo;u>I3^}߼x%93h4Z[wï?9!}on|'I)iљYѹK }jubb7Kfˁ+?j܍4gУ L(#EѲ%пbaJc~*ϖȝ;̷̿"0+Lp(+{K<<& %=%S'+&w*(Z() *r#Y΢>qREKPkM{@=4mFEƱ&>fa!V֪6lvD{ÔC:Rל}n$IOf/k{÷ѯʿ8 #0,)X3D(Ʉ𑈥(hq'WS<(̝Mژv.p@Vzvy#MG]ϻz&bEEy'N%+ (K)wVܥJ^^\&^bE@zn572oo4<&vG=<Pۻ6vTw>:uqbw=mR`,o:#&1HSgh>Jз'o-U,'m5a]wcf7vC`pE nl|O":SR_ݤ`c d:|1#ۜ\ܿx.e  I =TNe)%$%JAneLee8Z)r)6#o-**UT_E-I^!1ũբmF_gSRR\~C9YJcWfA"3s*ntKU%z !vY_99:n:5:w-goŭ]C-)ޓ5*)CH!!áB#FDYF3D9'7&A/a818>H~r+&8==#Ka,L֫\ܵ#Gw|'V nn'9_׾),duק7 {nJm[,Y -! dPn=X0+$BQT(Y3*u RyٳؾCfoU:ywig Wɬ{q7h@Ā dW B>( *@c(r$$Tf};hvt zy'SQ`B3eQ&։ΈޘјIYE՝-=ÓӖ˜یnjהόZ]0Jpcљ=eXe-duRh\6IG"جfpװhĴ\⊕uݠCG?U܀ P.Iq# (OKVaux!Ny,O }VNМ,S(vַ,tq::k7*[Zژ +}q\n'C=}p7Bo~7ոĹ3SAfc>Hrwiy JtٴʸڴKWƯ5ɵuu3<NO66~K}߿77}6Oml?WVf`F67 +`#ssrss 281 212 {U@IDATx !BBɩTiH1RJ&.*4Py n3)Dn DV; {}sֳֻ[ϸyRJkJC LVkz8yҘkm*h(PL(ЀLӜj(P`h@f4ljh(P`&h@f&iN5h(0v 4 3v654h(0 4 34 4;;  4  qS   Ȍ=QÓғ&p4=[P`(z=Xb[/yPb( )Wt ))mnMJ]?љ>ۧJ|oJCv ٔ^kR-&4|!*CR8jhLw/T3[o-RBOOiǸgԔ+uܦ@2=6~@ C:h"BQk{ߺqhw[$mޗG5=賟e$NoZ+2l7W,d PZ?m? @Kim)0`o^3I KM?9a)L@^N#P96$ 2׏I )Dw?N*Fx;|CZFeH-e]JvJP%lYxq]*c?Ŗ G GB ^jbO?VݔQb[.^=|Cz{`>}_{,XK]F|X1vg}ҥ^86 O~ݢ. ikix+ c)LIbgŦq?Y)/j)@s2,=x_obߙ;c0jY7m6"}f:s~xw]b dc-oszƜl,]i+ڼƿ~קJiԥR1vdsLogضGz_f}siҤI)ͱ.KtPl >or- L/N=lo}[ԩS",n4Cie C7 N9tgq'?~fIc6Jx`ZuUo`qcN'7[nGdx0ClohzgۆdONlI[%RцDdJOe?;=BzWltch0b7)+wZG?H&7ˌ. Tk7 o H-8yk2b5RE"BҰM7]/zEW;+|Y:')5^Pna&wu{;~vQ~Xwg͋K'F7Ґ[ɮvyB0C 09323Y {MH"ZD*Zs̐=ʳ:+|dh.P PkHni :}S娣)Ny *xfwq/T'ΟڅҀLxVZib`_n~<tjp6l9@&a;ݍ?^f6 IS|RW~l^7Jc jjq VlKd _{1, =~o30~u PtO!\}Y:! Zj'l:CdAzM(Xb/FM3)` R ze"-0@&\b8ipuBsw P|δBnϡ9-\|9ނA)Cx=]թ7z+ۯc|ͳGaVHzr?>GPZꫯ>XD~L:bGbL+Ц#v@s~welhJ#ɌjcGT8 $뮻nUtOQw}wvk|_rQ$ EjQ|#I^xaO#[K[<8 {\pAGNRN[o "8ؘUFS"iT( Dk ~sdXq3fé=k:LMs؃P lA!17uPF@D3k&ԶmDIfztZkMLpAU7 `6 Dl矟!c;̨ ?Pd#!pP| D\&vh|aCoO}S9-f[f@Cꬱxի^IxO|"?:2?!gXF_*Gj-:|%Xbڐr8&E p niovƽ ȠB.Z%@`Rc䕐RʼYij.i*D:+ +k{F}t9O u ۯ[K@CRche c'3}?5l%7n>JxZY&YV  \s5$G\{axހpT1+=C0`UE暜%{I'ek3 3DR0"+k8O1U ӘTZ\<]'jq-&g`hl x3#9Ӹ$-TLl {5$$@"`# hZXj[h+cޏ4i#8\K|O sk!W +MtI&:̩RK.zYm$BcXL叭dU>- B5"rɩf0&*r?[\Tu רG:d&xMKmI}>ItC9$}{Ucdq0Zg xhg9<'jvzN{Y}wO2Zc;:4eΣVFPמ7 ӣ#°jubW6i(@z`'-0ʒ`Adͭ  ̚Á̸yjus& zZUP)s>3Jx wI?i}N1s,&C';Mms)wU7P oN woy>M57( Ɔј!=S${4gCa8)d*#-.>yQ$Ӽ#b>D#>~nc{G0 `@IHF0Fé!a)ETчVj1%m3iҤCvыꫡ =G{H\,f4-ܷ܌b<3iFPtPGz=Z-g^'kV3!V"IqؐdDj }VE Fvp 3QpH\?s o[I(Ⓦ⭘[?bwT3i\ybd6ļ$"cCqqXH2vXfVCP$oab̊ux0{"D:E=.]-\+g8$T1``n_aM]v%g8eg IkW* E=SE51QE*׭&9&bh _!SJ3DՁ*1 5 cΞ@ 4 |EGSC;[mU^HtBi,yDZqPD+8gXlY(JealqX'-Eݝ(cVw^ffu&(0ikX1`& bՅ@1 (fzI&Ԋ~G>@}࢈fd^uƵ"r V@[B%V]{ժNCİpez7;Kc?-|2Ig ޯshVXtOZP,W \Z\)@h3Ȑ H) f[UuĄ+_IP5&qߊm5l#[iթItMLWF{xmDlUz :@-n`44AcLh/ ۋ F]]>|ÍQo>;G|5fkųTw=~6?2:}n1ى2fm5>Aj#6aP &]KU !fLd˯79^huBdAWi6 bQ<_>6!:cI} Ot]]V;u.Uiϲ@ƒnc`L%>8C'ٟ-[o=6[; so>7Iʓ`1z1w25eΥEGV0$P *(S&^ m8Vq@B DJbHټX\]YXsQ{vJqB ,rx+H6<],V.`"uHNsEY aiErCs EnゖK$!G_} 5PAĘrkOvL<+cjDlsU נMqs L isiU,DC.2aWEӞz꩙3AlFBȽulX0;  #*%/wOSڂϴx=`7HQ0@q"h+u u`X5zra$HFX.'@)C6mL"R y⽄wÜ/b,x3)be {B[D|x6ǎ!8"Hr˛Z=$HN"V_s!d_\!h BWJzM&mRp'I`| Цb}{6IwrTHrS~H!i4zJ * I<KچR}b~Wؒf1I`Q"Q <{} D"dqRSz9n < 0?Ba:qrZjq?)Y1jP2@W γۋ.@K}pC~c,ZK |$:}@@H6l@sޤ5`oo>W)`Ldn!T$Z v$ S7Uoڃ{c͌@^H9xe@^/ Q1H$hHL'[moVao'p (H*Pw~^J&{讑v^ hg_ID㲯vj?ꍄN?O0rDe *\Lʹ H7a :GU|hIA34"BmŔkP%V:0ڡ+FF?:ƒC8$1%'$|nKD]STcDU1C]ua{G8ǏqJgI@Ӆ=Sn5UaHe*V~LtT_Uj`(}fwJ:o*qw\@IT"J%{N|juڀ^mB|+UڗzõZ/U؜ALk v2*ͱ ƍÁ̸~ǭME  Qh@fαwgw]{M H[NNqK+i#11?<>q=E^z_]XxxƸ51W=Cd ^Fo{?q4qx9u=+@c1g5?c:51xT}yŜ1/P\67rt d09Bp͙\;C< N3]1q5A ۄ39S'kงЮw h֞^*sL k |p\ry+X !,ld%c!"cC1DF)ݣF|̳ili6`gaFȆK<b`o~XDI)sۉv d0! c&#0@z p*#72b`~@#ɛp.{9oH}ݳD"/Ԥ"rH#gxn DylO ?B,V/*Hr#PqMh^A{(ሷA_3(،w{HhokuB"c$_2%Z(A'KJ7p>s\9c1K"2bM&x&hʋ1?1`$ "LUV+]Ydw'fz!nR$$ J2A}'Keַ(RB Z 7iRO#g8Mbuݔ}ٻ|lF b19Fpz=[k Cc}k9zvAX $AHASʷP Tb8oUG`"bv #T)״K.*ZP_@1>~"Kb *\+𐆬M #GcB4.qߍ% _tsIv$[l,5<1ޮ5־-uI?ut dLN32DYY[i|G@2lɀ ?"|돱`L>t z5UłHmwGglL$[l4$RE;2*(S>`f4ޥ<a$,IyH-2NuCAʀɃ:(}_}cM2%9l' {'K"~1v,O Q!ā: t茀 $@7N]*">488'!:wjj5>04+{Mehb%hp`8WF[<̌ۮQG7Bsc(Hu]cK [H<9ܗ^Mi(0`黿AHmg0vaEՊ~ǦC2 ׷L5W4@Cޥ@_ L2\M @߃ |S 4] P`IwiP " gJ߂ uI]S 4xo\?o"JԸ4Ie7~5_ Bݟɧ3Ŗ(c?}om2i~k~XP([6W)}K)FU,o[L1Ѥ(6ˡi.h(y Ħ~J瞗y^߂LJv{#q:3M fW\Yl2qd왝bٺmͻ D#7p҆ΛgŞ]~x<. R4e.ax}bgŔ~}}J?Ja뼇i޶-AoUyϦ>8]qy\[ $׽u#k%|;^jo馛fUH9ޗ뮻5矟(4Iq04F` d@wqnG2@o}k{ccXL(vwSx$5uNˀbl 0ʎ;Utph)vuUͱO~nS=yO@2kfկ~iRbO~ sZ* n!KZȂɿogiOL'OF/u-G?@ |d$Х?۶+s]¢Utg6{se6}\wuާ+4eʔ|?;͉v)ց;μG {wt{4]z3`k6`Bp8HT ?F՘cE" d DR_d>\ Xxc1VjZu+1ɭ T^ z8oE&ۊ`^A?`E@#$isLf8=`x@߀ ߾k?05xq}'R#I~Ĵ`96xLۓO>9O8?#T +n5\sTC"] и l1Xj2% yDtD@4 ;iARN0L=T2 !U6*ic*P FmH"V+4B41 9׻W=O$hk78Z\Ѓ]C;H`Жr&8"mS[ѴfNXaߵ¢m룾>;0 q 4OTGĽBpņẅO}VLV? L n}K_j#O21ޭV\W{{G=VgZ:~XLh{F\asj )v9ϕN{ ;.27 P` Է8`Lj''QmMVm\j$I-Ȍξ1*o3QGN׾5[}c10VЙJVeǚP)w30ʉC1Ee0wa=CMozS`c0sNx?bbt.s},Et4~.jy>^qDu!g(}[aM[vߊ~V[!g#* BD+ܷqo< r">;cz[t8Ƌ^"[b>S[ l{6 }g& _.g MIu!reGjfФ9j*>Z `qι+\|HGu" 8Cu J8׫`=!JT8 XnqJD/׭HYH/v?w=F G\l#an+}. Nߊ X }ydbE y)@Dd9P&u I2Ia1!!1}SomR@J~&_3lظ,b R<>Iq$1O.$dXrҗ хe '`.&T^0IS>GRbY~ Z[T&-IpGtBc288E&v6 yѨl+G[h@\y/44_I EѾrcL^x/A0ds=7K4MrLkvD:tAX te"a*L1ki)wA{?=`1H)Hk19Olkk<]صh8Dz׏ Ѷ/@f2R,iWp3ZRH҈$DKS>< FZ WuvXͪX釖Cs<;icz>>n i$$R:'eRģHiER C6K { 4 q8_x:[`)L{Rx(` {y 0c5Cqm#[|}~^R͹)$[F\{Q-scTP L$=!!K/NwLdɇ"]V"g)+A򉰋KiOR E\\XC pV) r)Gਔ!h~hs)E ;JnL{ft~=L;gf>cY9\O S)M X7B Ҕ6ٸH"҈IdF^mwhn-E$nɐp©]G@ML:Y!o۝T Q&hWoJ?׎qR. 8cS1[bmBQcbM0 +3UcfN9 BEQg)ƹtFvJS3/TjӊEJqo}'=b806e";+_J6&&}}EeʛniB0хњ+ZX"i"TmPZ;ʳ Ȅ;B@ȹQ ҩ7ߒbpS/ktUPҐU1& l!<>-@f;LVHF1O;zܓbA/)# Sdb]L*~ɂH9GJu)G^'@'HϤڋ?͢գ軸H`T:B}J{dQ Gd 9\~"AEtKD*8kK?db1ǥ4eJ!c,ziP{woH{}&OHZbyv5ER fLiO`r}DJyy лfq^VSKHPowI &*T&5ׄt mTɏ&5p7HȅY^ǡ1SH>M&=wzOdm4XIzP#.R% Hт e#xsҤIzA!HdHm h'UcFh2 PejNݱr! I=R H2yD_.NSt, Z(u\8Vr}0I6mQZCfG"!C.slj#CyUH@JoFz{ULAgt To5,nqgITД9&1o W*xD7a^ȶT&3UD=oU`:B8"vۦ~pSJkBIB0NRK_9"^WR  @a[k_[kb$ ǩSn%z ^:v(4Deu=~(3C 3W܊hk9p"7VV@u~i]x׊WΔ1oV zֳS戡"PWἊ[1[a7mwuEʘG@gR+V7L{V{ޗ}ܡw]3@f3R,\9 wڝYWlvgH6|%O*s|arэ3S~6Nv0 ?7EP_>\~Ag<ҫRʼnP,]P/n軶 =[msz&NfM~!~b.xBŰ'ti,g NxKnJ_ɧ͡ó9Ogn:ƻV1r7-f:SK7Y 'P ~{#N0xo yvD?$=9#.x |s,P2 f{2) ׿7GJlZ)b9RXK| &n9ӫSON!\zɠ#$I=B= Ȉ}^T5gJ` ]! 0pqX8.r$$#W6ɼԽհAsh!ĄU!sCC^7Va_93ӥ iеvœ3Ε!?Gg)GdƸ;OHUr.}eTޑufL|{F6pG {=_]*&&% &0gIia!ͯH#%= &lׇѿ'z%S<ӔK, wJ bc@/ܵ&?)OAxQcqKmQ=\ 0v=9bk\w[ŋ+o/ 6޴O}Spf..iަ3wMj4\bʦ݁X$S XMAU辋tnI9Os}CQ~ۈe Wh#)EWwܥJlRI4~KH%&3BZf|UwܡKA=w"=\Xl`'UV`H/^Hn[B .L;Q,,MsnXO -B '+~J0J%BR!ov.) be|v&O<-{HƵzc3*Le5yHjQKJB"O-U)['@=wIʪקpzJmbB3`ɤ&7GτJ؞ucO$F׼6@fb '=$9.9`y1WHOPbϟ@߫ϰqQ*~G[ PN}Z"q?P/ p_}> #Ў$F믟J@=ŧ(_^ H8>F|@EŢ`H25C/~iN J%~Ĉ t 0!T'ۊI*) }?E1iá1ʂ!ƄWmX>x%}vI`:S:ŕq.TQoDЯ ߣ_ Y[b+=&sh8eJQKI*~?6C]\<Ġg=oiE{ "Cz\lr͐$ V#Z+^H;'"xz%:Ln}J",iBz# G>{fW5^,VM 0JFZژysrP ^< C##)q I*>u̱qmtCFcw@**ǽw1w \kL[ͨofG"Ϧem;6[M(uslk,˖[g#[m-vfȞ0ZbWGV߾XZLSswV_{FްgoHx, W e 6l_>E~n9N,Z&ʽ\VY4|p}?v!(V[&S_ -&L$|o߄T:Y-GY۽Ml>oX~v{G^p 9 rtC"Պ-Yzk7 $mU~z[ͰB LZ* hSvg#;6iqMi5NMgakyfWWgOhfR`9{|QfD"T)S;q|]뭒rvqǜ4U-vDRfbo@peޏYTa WAAfwR著~τn_=mzgufI4 jM x)@,<1׳ X9P}lXx+^ E? iģ6* hy<= _=Nɚg, }ݳdBR' `jCMŠE% F{"_<)@j `G X<֌`JH =qug#FZ{I^@H1̒ `a+Pk h>uy6Oq̓!̝8Pxkɓ'Oׄ:݉^;`D0 { sŭT* 3 `ERF٬e mp=KpD, dfN6xa2ԣZ6T 0-IqT$7_E+CUgjj?dB1xJ4X2XѬ[qlޱph*H V[~ȻCcgRLJewWh\|0f0PXLơSmom4xИE).`؉*Y X+lJ^h8&_ l)ѵ*xQl I'rN+&ϛ)yXqG#ɘ@bŨ)rR=\0l!O,1+Vv)GRg$t  neC. "{߫dc_paf`~dэ=s(:wM H(S`hyySu)R,i8j QWS ._Șl/sL0&|&aZGNX_*^$+Gbl*+.0bMTܲsj@sͥJ,:Dɝ9@jq׊ti-5ЙE3@]G?R#p~xaduxf )87 }=~ߝ> #H7_y+*V$!@bZ~xab,ҧw/9m#4 N i->mѝS'lEsަ],2,FU4&&L=D^b?.q21^:Lj ]o4>￯jV=yJ;5ڲiW88rr b#_iW pw4. 80s2^vIYو'p-D^(3*5wY7N!3fAyh; MڱXm"/f'C9Æ,mTlHv dOoI@^ u dBЯoe@BVijD]oN&:{`RՊdD2-pJձeOiR @)yqqkE=C{" (*6Ha]H|lIlu>R[A16Hd xS~cΆq*OG)@FpaE:GW`)P7} @~^?l2Iv{bh{l21ɏ2w\NܼVszv- qG\~>+^Xn^Oςw>aL/̑.{0y!7<] кU+ގA*+sW e./_6.ƂډEB@I,燍WJeҫ]']߰^x/!-a}#fD20? )bkH D'\X9E<ꈢ]Zė\~EٺLM- òqEp6*`Y_"&靛\.5pI%+,_B?}I)S_DĵP'=tUaŨC)L3YL0ɖ701 RL'u}JMNچH?yrJS/q2 AC{W;CݭPfa:"N@.5W/ȱ2=V ~m<h+ԚV0tKk+K+i깡1_iS_r}HQ]N+ic~m <ݵC4ߑ}US;N;VdmyA+DFէϗm&m➮B~fxi9mcfbhsshlMt@@ŋ((v;lPgD}lHyǖHJnXZMΌ2=)@π b)>gYvrp"ܴ¬2ܾ crU0xFf@]gW-IqRL(Ť6S^ W1K8Ǝ®+$LOaŠhɮH-x-I{> 5-K)E]m4o<: }sy`~tG|mNf"QJ kkasמrCMХVnQkY7u#tpA :oo\n:;QD"b0Ql#MM 79$&<0x뮏Wb0&*-uilKIFs!iE<뿡,PN!ˑ2!u@N0FZS{۱ڭ [:@cfa8+GUH|=^L<5<1"1^%bt_oy=easSlvWdhe vl tzcg QC|`gstASO{wkmLNG+9veT؛ѧ vcw̗)erKinس=03kx| j(6MA Vdx-ռY9# KO?qm} 0>`OcXX%}C ,k1(SB?C[ Hzi96\>OY5k%` xjh\k+9ë?{ (w9>2#Eg^>Nj|oE`עbEHy R%V0rG4dJxt#fbp^Z^ƿdf%Aͷt!e%,Fh8{ J>|XYY:VC[s"ɱSDm:LkBRWņ&1v"꯶j4-*K 7v!ВSBc *=,:3Y&0Է'N,jcPAgrŌ^ws83)F-̬`:v'0m0 Q0Εd#-"a<aVgµV\d{?3pwި By.; G'|0=n}\b3' D6yHGM:3Mf׆$SyֳCY4RjYZhŇ۟+;Ʒ"d+a4vPPK` #T ^ZUлl 84^q/CBկvWrLԧNuP> \( ;)Ajg`qE|:"=tn _6Bq=(^JOzK yD`@_߉ !X̻,(Jo-E?a3cM\ ̐\s Oekʙ{?o:ī_ HdHWCL@&4h(=†N 6u6"->P6cǯ{}Lx-[%nQO,+qƴ*If)/ &@::+/,"WFwF@G.]tq%\@-KF)mDIJ//q5JCp8 /}9bici7A^kJCBi"'D:ɫD-, ҶۖkDo I90#[o Ֆe+ 1V^#6v v# 1xxVP) j[d$4bKQ,!=3*%Ȋ} ~ K0@H@/*5_R<>>ЇG?;m@fv\Ph#xji#҉ yz ]asa\sm=i(eh ̳Tg|UǦBmD )  jH&- $se'IU;¶b3uyjgYl/~R;N%"6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666660666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666606p02&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66006 OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`@ &7NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH bb e Heading 1$$ F@&!B*CJ OJPJQJ^JaJ ph/TDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List P@P m List Paragraph ^m$OJPJQJ^J4 @4 *>20Footer H$.. *>20 Footer Char.)@!. *>20 Page NumberR^@2R U0 Normal (Web)dd[$\$OJPJQJ^Jj`Cj p Table Grid7:V0B'`QB ho0Comment ReferenceCJaJL@bL ho0 Comment TextCJOJPJQJ^JaJR/qR ho0Comment Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJPjabP MO0Comment Subject5OJPJQJ\^J^/^ MO0Comment Subject Char5CJOJPJQJ\^JaJD DMO0RevisionCJ_HaJmH sH tH HH MO0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/N MO0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJV/V eHeading 1 Char!B*CJ OJPJQJ^JaJ ph/TPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V3=KjK爉ŬʉaqHwo?x}>6!N J?6v?w_Z3tç$y/,YVϲYLcDt~q"9⧣E"g 36AxgKA,ƉwV=&D-䧘a"FEG<+)/騳2YfEA5i5r{F2rhnz*kU̘aby&Z4MtoKnwu[K@Y5Fm3AM2ޕaŨ; uۭ=: ުv|TV_>%^/*!C!=I.pŭG2#=u{A*?xMVfȯ׆h,"N~e /w$wmBTRUzcn5fwЪtq:nT=q k:V=*^&whv3om <"^PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Atheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] Breana LoveMark Goshgarianܣ 3n t:D'5t@K^Bl$BL:/BL1MGT$BL$BL5@BLWeMGA;BL/BLիlBL (nBLSeoBLtoBLWpBL4BLV|BL|BLmBL`BLXBLnBL{BLNzzbb;|kad'bGcGkglcgQd'dG#dg#dg*dd'td tdd2ddqdd֣d=Ga >E}$<2  $$$' cHS o&%+:03T<BFKOTYt^dgnqsx }H:XvѩK&' ~|Y Da"$\)*069<B*GILDQYaeilqUx}oS<\oٜf7ķK1-2T?/:0 A-'!').48=AiFKSX[aibnrDw{_ N"4hҦm9Opr5 ""%;)H/c3-9x<A8FKOUX^bfknvs zXߍlc h]c Cy Ct'+.$037N<AD*GLOUXL\^dinsMx}ƁWnݓ)[שDI'? A !#(:,/2N8:>DGJLQSW\Y}]_cgmSrtwztZ$    "$%'(*+-.013578:;=>@BCEGIJLMOQRTW[^`acefhiklmopqstvxy{|~    !#$%'(*+-.0235689;<=?@ACDFHIKMNOQRTUWXZ\]_`bcefgijlmnpqrtuvxyz|}< a! +36,AI1Za7irỳm^1ǩeyyH#'t09GBGMX4`gmxc~bωxӡ:ŷPK2"} d$.46=ENVG` jq{? X<"Y)2<9FQ]fgpyՁP AW2 ..j4A?VKRYcahPrzP'ר~$fR9*4@rJQXblv2ys8$  !#&),/2469<?ADFHKNPSUVXYZ\]_bdgjnruwz}  "&),/147:>BEGJLPSVY[^adhkosw{~rssb=?bdBDxz~7y8{8|89 9DDD$CCCCCCCCCCCC  '!!L# @0(  B S  ? :/1T$$5@WeA;/իl (nSeotoWp4V||m`Xn{NƢa3sOwDB)T5H@K^ko ܣ 3n t:D'5t@K^BloGRvSvٔڔǯȯssss>?@AcdefCDEFyz{|z8{89 9!9#9DDDDo%RvSvٔڔǯȯss>?cdCDyzz8{89 9DDo%S ʅ D=ZeX~4 :&7r6ZM\pp*u%6RqBlt&h~&>`@B'i7)L@h+|q-pDs4,zE(64a$@@ gB]&oNHHa .M6ZOFzVR6ZfWlXt{exe6Zhl.:! j6Z*o(()X ^X `.(#L^(#`L.%^%`.(^(`.+L^+`L.h.^h.`.81^81`.4L^4`L.h^h`B*OJQJo(ph8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( 80^8`0B*o(phS5. ^`5B*phDr.pL^p`L56B*ph.@ ^@ `56B*ph.^`56B*ph.L^`L56B*ph.^`56B*ph.^`56B*ph.PL^P`L56>*B*ph.p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`B*CJaJo(ph.(^`(o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(. p^ `po(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(.@ S^@ `So(.^`o(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.8^8`B*OJQJo(phv8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(`^``B*OJQJo(ph0^0`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @^@`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(h^h`B*OJQJo(ph8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(^`B*OJQJo(ph^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^h`B*OJQJo(ph8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(h^h`B*OJQJo(ph^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`B*OJQJo(phv^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( h ^h `OJQJo(8 ^8 `OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo(h^h`B*OJQJo(ph8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(h^h`B*OJQJo(ph0^0`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`o(.(^`(o(.(^`(o(.L^`Lo(.^`o(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`B*CJaJo(ph.(^`(o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(. p^ `po(. ^`o(.x^x`o(.h^h`B*OJQJo(phv8^8`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`B*CJaJo(ph.(^`(o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(. p^ `po(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`B*OJQJo(phv^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`B*CJaJo(ph.(^`(o(.H (^H `(o(. (^ `(o(. p^ `po(. ^`o(.x^x`o(.8^8`B*OJQJo(phv^`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(x^x`OJQJ^Jo(o H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo(p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`B*CJaJo(ph.(^`(o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(. p^ `po(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.^`o(.^`o(.^`o(.p^p`o()@ ^@ `o(()^`o(()^`o(()^`o(()^`o(()p^`pCJo(.(^`(o(.^`o(.(^`(o(. (^ `(o(.L^`Lo(.^`o(.^`o(.PL^P`Lo(.0:&~&NHiuNH NH NH 4! j! j *u%eM\p! j O! j H&K{iNgIki6MCJK-&XVj|9b:'EV^&K`o(%"*j 3* )'E,$OY+)v!iuK}H5S&K';8)#`,h/ R.&Ku)#`8b PFqszX @ 0y&Ko* %"*i !z h 3 k@ *aVUC] ca =d A :  0y&Ks Y ].8d"$ 5S8w\ i6MCJKq V\]d0 ~#jT n%#W ,&K !z#h/  rfhcx + G9#DQ{ FSzCI Y_&K Y+K28)Vc@.>HUfiqe#B(X>#:V+ G9#T*=#si-_TNR.&KZY+hgiNg >o;nF&KZ<&K'lFeCj27[Y{Htn%#1_Y_&K./>s4lYtUj& `s&Y+:[{hhypChC8` i.Xs4jC|OJuv,&K c+P8d$L#s&+.X#r_ ;rf}h/ #Y*aV&K&rUfK-[C|Os0y&[{hh['\*0W=t5S&\|9b5+qe#)e3=d pd&Kx~`PWr8dNYj&Kkh 3 &K8CN Pr#{ ;&K?L`_?Aj 3IZh/ T6CM#G||fh6'Cj- -+ F|Dy*aV&K~ ,&+)}N7Ni,d>=d pdO}L;G|&K&^7ZAz`D[l*gv'sev(ZB]#>; qes3 PFq#^J F83Y 0y {>!t!.Xs V"&XVQ"Y+K5"Y+&Kn%#g+H#Y_/_#*k }&Kwh#I9`E5#R.f# y2H#aSShmh$o \my$($R.&K.^$ &&8d7qL&NYj0b&ZB]#.k&o \!T&{K#sv=';nF$Q'Fwk'ca hMZt'|9bJKv'}(g&ZF(8dh\(.X#1H(}N7N(a}<Ak(NYj&K@(/>#t(;G|&Kt)L#s)V\]h);nF&K<\*%"*Y*s7,%"*,U,m- yv;--+&K<-X C#s {-%"*[-=d h-Z<;t-%.g&Kh,.ca h20.-6s&KR.].x/Z<&Ky@S/ZB]s/PU0v'sX*1g&Kh]1"13}`j\:1,&&2T='2c+P8dO=122/q3".E2R X:2;G|73Q3b}#m!*3qes43lC93 ;2/q3!?3vJ3;G|"94 3 i4,&KDq4t=4iwX,5;z?5R.&K0o55Z<&K5^Ob5ay"62/q3&K'p6iNg&Ker6 07("80y&K M78R.&K[8R XhB8+ G9DV9.z9)#`I9]9Wl9 y9-+&K"C9ca h~D+:X C#si:+:r=8d#:5S&KC:ca h ;vm;D[lWn;=d hQ;w7b#<,&Km{q<F<&XVZ<a}<nH</<Zt2= ;D=g&r=X=g#*=(X>/>{ >4^R?=d 8d`_?C?Uf;?i6MCP?*k }&K8?6? 'J@%L@iwXIGE@4@FS@F -AaF8A(NA].8d5VA,&K=jAZB]sGA=d pd]A;G|&K3A].8dZGB'E#j$9]BH&KC\CH1D~dLDC|OsrnDwE&KxmDV\]hO/D*&KaDh]18d"9DFwE?xEzEY_&K F<\*K?H+XHhC8#s2HL#shF5Iv'#BI'tIr=hMxIZ<JKvI0y&K+Ic+Ph F JjJV\]hebzJY_&KMeJD[l&KmJ{K(2K8KC#}yK*k }&K0L5S&eLn%#5qyL!z:cL!Ww7bs,W*k }@9XEH&KR X.X4X|fh&X\6X)#`iwXOY2/q3&KY!?3#jlYRYwE&K Z4^&KtZ!?3#jFZtZhC8`,:[zU[D[l7S[5S&K@, \v'so \Le\h/ 5\g&K@\Z<ZB]D P]i6MCV\]]^ I]p]5S&K>4^FSzCR*^ ;&K^4^ ^R.!_'EV_tH_g&KY_hw_%'_L#s _Z<&K `@Q`wEX{t`PFqs`6CM3}`LE:a~#jc'Qa2/q3iaJaz agv? bNYj|9b-4b^}=bD[l&KZIb?`b)#`,hb;nFJKbbi6MC&KNbh]1hw7b9c`_?c=d dR]dlY&Kq=rd=d pd*;ydZdY_&KJVdZB]sEd,&C'eFSzCWewE^e&yqeUjfg&K|foxKg[{hhiNgjogiNg&KqgZIb! g3}`jg-QgC|OlgdggZ<g[{hYh hFBh}(ibio \&K i ;\orjwE&K0Kj5S&KNYj_kR X&KE6k(X>#Sk*k }&K'Tl'J@llqes |l|fh/_mFmF>mR.Lmc+P8d7hn,qnCj ngwot:p @5qo \PFqGq}N7NGq-+%zq&X#j{1qZB]s|qv!iu Prrt6rnYr5SHv so \&Kms{bs[}ser6h.sj 3-6s*t=d pdv+tFitt-ct/>#*tO6u 3 &Kv!iuquR X&K%WuY+K=vv!iu w[{hh!wv!iu&Kw?xF ;xn%#x&yQqyC|Os yP]yY+Kya}<&K/)5z2/q37ZAzR'IzFSzrYzX C#s*xz%"*Nzi6MC&KWziwX!zz{K#s| {ca 8d?]\{].&mg{Ms{/{C|Os|Z<&KZ:|;G|.K|*0WJ|[{hhk}n%#*k }VZe}F$Xk}}n%#b}V~=d dHiNg/CYPFq#HROn%#"hoz{gm>tR/Tl:j>!Z#RI%`&*<+{,*>2F3&78m8e9;z:OAB8CFYv\Xuwi/*SQ\X-G ar]Lm4;%(ZYhv:}J.)(<bUf"6Z$q#A*$2dMOT1Y< ;g33(\|oo@$@Unknown G.[x Times New Roman5^Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.*{$ Calibri;^Wingdings3Z PTimes9GaramondC.,*{$ Calibri Light?= *Cx Courier NewA$BCambria Math"1h0tg0tg  10nlnlN@P $P'm20! xxb4 Mark GoshgarianBernstein, Alexandra                          Oh+'0   @ L Xdlt|'Mark Goshgarian Normal.dotmBernstein, Alexandra2Microsoft Office Word@@8 @8  ՜.+,0 hp|  ' nl  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Root Entry F@W& Data [ 1Tabled WordDocument42 SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q