Malicious Procurement of A Search or Arrest Warrant

Penal Code 170. Every person who maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant or warrant of arrest to be issued and executed, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Enacted 1872.)

READ UP MORE….. on Malicious Prosecution and Thompson Vs. Clark and other SCOTUS Rulings here

This is a violation of the process also known as abuse of process not to be confused Due Process which is another part of this violation

The term ‘process’ refers to the proceedings in any civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution and usually describes the formal notice or writ used by a court to exercise jurisdiction over a person or property. Such process compels the defending party to appear in court, or comply with an order of the Court. It may take the form of a summons, mandate, subpoena, warrant, or other written demand issued by a court. When one files suit, one normally has a summons issued by the court which compels the defendant to appear within thirty days to contest the matter.

Abuse of process refers to the improper use of a civil or criminal legal procedure for an unintended, malicious, or perverse reason. It is the malicious and deliberate misuse of regularly issued civil or criminal court process that is not justified by the underlying legal action. to learn more about ABUSE of PROCESS click here and to learn abusing the Constitutinal Right to Due Process click here which involves several Constutional Rights afforded by the Amendments

• Fourth Amendment
• Fifth Amendment 
• Fourteenth Amendment
• Malicious Prosecution and Thompson Vs. Clark and other SCOTUS Rulings click here
• Prosecutorial misconduct – When prosecutors abuse their power by breaking the law or breaching a professional code of conduct.

Sources Cited / Notes:

¹ Blog Article Published June 12, 2018.
² In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1027-1028.
³ People v. Garcia (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 715.
⁴ People v. Garcia (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 715, 721.

How We Got the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule and Why We Need It

The exclusionary rule evolved because of the ineffectiveness of the warrant procedure in preventing illegal searches and seizures, and it remains effective as a means of preventing the government from achieving the ends of its illegal activity and as a symbol of the justice system’s commitment to the citizen rights mandated in the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment provides for a warrant system intended to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures; however, there is no specific constitutional provision for the exclusion of evidence illegally acquired. The framers of the Constitution exaggerated the effectiveness of the warrant procedure, but it does not follow that they were not serious about preventing the evils the warrant procedure was designed to address. The exclusionary rule was adopted by the courts as a rule of evidence to deal with the failure of the warrant system to address after-the-fact fourth amendment violations.

California Search Warrants – 7 Key Things to Know

In California, a search warrant is issued by a judge and authorizes law enforcement to search a person, a residence, a vehicle, a place of business, or any other specified area suspected of containing evidence of illegal activity.

Once police find the evidence they are seeking, the search warrant allows officers to seize that evidence.

Unless a search is

1. authorized by your consent,
2. incident to a lawful arrest, or
3. under some other recognized exception,

it must be executed pursuant to a valid search warrant.

That said, there are many restrictions on when and how cops may execute California search warrants. Violations of these rules may result in a reduction (or even a dismissal) of your criminal charges.

In order to help you understand the law, our criminal defense attorneys will explain 7 key things to know about search warrants in California:

• 1. Who can authorize a search warrant?
• 2. What are the search warrant requirements for police in California?
• 3. Are there rules as to the use of informants?
• 4. How can a defense lawyer challenge the validity of a search warrant?
• 5. How are the police allowed to execute a warrant?
• 6. What is the knock and announce rule?
• 7. What is a motion to suppress evidence?

1. Who can authorize a search warrant?

Although a search warrant is issued on behalf of the state (that is, by the prosecuting agency), the judge actually issues and signs it. ^{1 2 3} The purpose of having a judge issue the warrant instead of the police or a prosecutor is to ensure that a neutral, detached individual evaluates the circumstances of the criminal investigation.⁴

Before the judge can sign off, two requirements must be met: The judge must reasonably believe

1. that a misdemeanor or felony has been committed, and
2. that evidence of that criminal case is likely to be found in the place(s) described in the search warrant.⁵

If the facts presented in the warrant application are convincing, the judge must sign and issue the search warrant.⁶

Also, we should clarify the distinction between search warrants and two other common types of warrants.

• A California arrest warrant is usually issued when criminal charges have been filed, and it authorizes the police to arrest you on the charges.
• A California bench warrant is issued by a judge for violating some rule of court, such as failing to appear for your court hearing or failing to pay a fine that was required as a condition of probation.

2. What are the search warrant requirements for police in California?

There are certain requirements that law enforcement must meet in order to obtain a search warrant in California. They must show probable cause that the locations to be searched contain evidence, instruments or fruits of criminal activity.

The following are examples of the types of grounds on which a California search warrant may be issued:

• if the sought property was allegedly stolen
• if the sought property was allegedly used as a means to commit a felony
• if the sought property is evidence of the fact that a felony has occurred or that you have committed a felony
• if the sought property is in possession of someone who intends to use it to commit a crime or in the possession of another to whom they may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or keeping it from being discovered
• if the sought property reveals child pornography
• if an arrest warrant has already issued.⁷

It should be noted that if the sought property is held by an attorney, doctor, psychotherapist, or member of the clergy, a special procedure will be held before that evidence may be seized. Even then, the attorney, doctor, therapist, or clergyman must be the individual suspected of engaging in the alleged criminal activity.⁸

Before a judge issues a search warrant, they must have probable cause to do so.

Probable cause

“Probable cause” is a legal phrase. It refers to a “reasonable” belief that criminal activity is taking (or has taken) place.

So before a judge issues a search warrant, they must have a reasonable belief that the person/property specifically described in the warrant application (otherwise known as an “affidavit“) will be found in the searched location.⁹

Before finding that probable cause exists, the judge may question (under oath)

• the officer,
• prosecutor, or
• state investigator¹⁰ who applied for the warrant, and
• any witnesses that the requesting individual relied on to determine that a warrant was necessary.

These affidavits may be written or oral, and presented in person, via the telephone, by fax, or even e-mail.¹¹ They also must contain the facts that establish the grounds for the application or the probable cause for believing that they exist.

Affidavits are under penalty of perjury.¹²

Search warrants v. other types of warrants

3. Are there rules as to the use of informants?

Police routinely rely on information provided by informants. Informants are individuals who provide information about people, organizations, or activities to the police without the consent of those people or organizations.

That said, the judge must be informed of some of the facts that led the informant to their conclusion that there is alleged criminal activity.¹³ A mere opinion that a person or property is involved in a crime is therefore insufficient without evidence to support it.

Since it is the judge who must determine if there is probable cause to issue the warrant, they must believe that the informant’s information is reliable. This may be established by:

• the identity of the informer,
• past experiences with the informant in which they have proven to be reliable, and/or
• corroboration by the officer’s personal observations or other evidence.¹⁴

The informant’s identity

The judge may require disclosure of the informant’s name or may require them to give a statement under oath as to the information they provided to the police.¹⁵ However, just because the informant’s identity is disclosed to the judge does not mean it will necessarily be disclosed to the defense.

A judge is allowed to seal any or all of the affidavit to protect the identity of a confidential informant if that testimony helped establish the probable cause that led the judge to issue the warrant.¹⁶

Although the judge will not reveal the informant’s identity simply because you wish to use it to attack the judge’s finding of probable cause, they may ask the prosecutor to disclose it if your motion to traverse and quash the search warrant has merit.¹⁷

4. How can a defense lawyer challenge the validity of a search warrant?

Although motions to quash and traverse would be more appropriately explained in the final section titled “Motion to Suppress Evidence“, they merit discussion here. They directly relate to informants and the probable cause required to obtain California search warrants.

A motion to “quash and traverse” challenges the affidavit (and underlying probable cause) that the judge relied on upon issuing the California search warrant:

• A motion to traverse challenges the truth of the affidavit.
• A motion to quash challenges the sufficiency of the affidavit (that is, even assuming the facts are true, whether they rise to the level of probable cause).

Although these motions may be filed separately or together, the terms are often used interchangeably. We will discuss them as one for the sake of simplicity.

California criminal defense lawyers may assert motions to traverse and quash a search warrant in three types of hearings:

1. in a Franks hearing (to assert that the author of the affidavit (otherwise known as the “affiant”) provided false information,
2. in a Luttenberger hearing (to assert that the informant provided false information), or
3. in a Hobbs hearing (which is based on a sealed affidavit).

Franks hearings

If you request a Franks hearing to quash and traverse a warrant because you believe the supporting affidavit contains false information, you must set forth the reasons why you believe that it is inaccurate.¹⁸ California criminal defense lawyers may do this by demonstrating that:

1. the affidavit contained a false statement,
2. the statement was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and
3. that the statement was necessary (that is, “material”) to establish probable cause.¹⁹

It should be noted that if the affiant intentionally leaves out material information, they will be deemed to have provided materially false information “by omission”.²⁰

The court must hold an “in camera” hearing if the judge believes that you have effectively challenged the truth of the affidavit.²¹ An in-camera hearing is a private hearing held in the judge’s chambers.

During this hearing, the judge may question the affiant or informant to determine whether the affidavit is accurate, false, or misleading.²²

If the criminal defense attorney succeeds in proving that

1. the affidavit contained false material information, and
2. the remaining information is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause,

the judge must quash the California search warrant.

Once the search warrant is quashed, any evidence that was seized under the warrant will be suppressed.²³

*Suppressed evidence is discussed in the section titled “Motion to Suppress Evidence”.

Luttenberger hearings

When the affidavit supplying the probable cause contains information from an undisclosed informant, it is extremely difficult to establish that the affidavit is false – which is the standard to get a Franks hearing.

If the informant is not a material witness with respect to your guilt or innocence (an eyewitness to the alleged crime, for example), the prosecution is under no duty to disclose their identity.²⁴

A Luttenberger hearing takes place when you want to attack the truth of the affidavit but do not know the identity of the informant. In this hearing, the California criminal attorney may request information about:

1. the informant’s reliability,
2. their motive for providing information (for example, was the informant paid or offered leniency in exchange for their testimony?), and
3. any statements that the informant made in connection with the case.

Although the burden of proof is less strict than a Franks hearing, the defense still must cast doubt as to the truthfulness of the informant’s testimony. If you accomplish this, the court will conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the statements are material.²⁵

If the statements are material, the court will redact (or remove) any information that may disclose the informant’s identity before it provides you with the

• affidavit or
• supporting document(s).²⁶

If, during this hearing, you discover that the informant is a material witness to your guilt or innocence, you would move to disclose their identity at a Hobbs hearing.

Hobbs hearings

At a Hobbes hearing, the defense asks the judge to reveal the identity of the confidential informant upon whose information the California search warrant got issued.

When the entire affidavit has been sealed to protect the informant’s identity, it may be too difficult even to qualify for a Luttenberger hearing. When this is the case, the court must conduct an in-camera hearing upon receipt of your motion to traverse or quash the California search warrant.²⁷

Unless the prosecutor agrees, the hearing takes place without you or your criminal defense attorney.²⁸ During this closed hearing, the judge must decide

1. whether to maintain the confidentiality of the informant, and
2. whether the affidavit has been properly sealed.²⁹

If the court believes that the affidavit was properly sealed but does not believe that the information contained in it was false or misleading, it will simply deny your motion.³⁰

If, however, the court believes that you may succeed in your motion, it will first give the prosecution the opportunity to disclose their informant or have the case dismissed if the judge rules in your favor.³¹

In our experience, the prosecution will generally dismiss the case before revealing or “burning” the police informant.

5. How are the police allowed to execute a warrant?

The contents of a California search warrant must be described with reasonable particularity.³²

Simply put, “reasonable particularity” means that the warrant should be so clear that nothing is left to the officer’s discretion when executing it.³³  This applies to both

1. the place to be searched, and
2. the person/property to be seized.³⁴

This means that a search warrant must be executed according to the exact details contained in the warrant³⁵ – warrants that are clear in their descriptions will be upheld and those that are unduly vague will not.

The following are some examples taken from actual California court cases regarding law enforcement agency searches:³⁶

Descriptions that were found not to be sufficiently clear —

• “all of the financial records”
• “other evidence”
• “stolen property”
• “certain personal property used as a means of committing larceny“

Items that were described with reasonable particularity —

• “personal property tending to identify the person in control”
• “bookmaking paraphernalia”
• “illegal deer meat and/or elk meat, etc.”

The more specific the language, the more likely the California search warrant will be upheld.

Time of execution

A California search warrant must be executed within ten (10) days of its issuance. If it has not been executed within that timeframe, it becomes void.³⁷

If the warrant expires, it may be reissued as long as the judge still believes there is probable cause to support it.³⁸ It, therefore, follows that if the probable cause that existed at the time of the original issuance is no longer relevant, the judge will not reissue the warrant.

There are also restrictions on what time of day a warrant may be executed. As a general rule, a search warrant may only be executed between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.  If, however, the judge finds good cause, they may authorize service at any time of the day or night.³⁹

“Good cause” means that there is a factual basis for believing that a nighttime intrusion would be justified based on exigent circumstances.⁴⁰ If, for example, you have several outstanding warrants, service will be authorized whenever possible.

When establishing good cause, the judge must consider both

• public safety and
• the safety of the officers serving the warrant.⁴²

See our article on What happens after a search warrant is executed?

With respect to seized property…

The officer must provide a detailed receipt for any property that they seized during the search. The officer must leave the receipt with

1. the person from whom they took the property,
2. the person who possessed the property, or
3. where they found the property if it was taken without anyone being present.⁴²

Once taken, the officer must keep the property in police custody until they present it to the court.⁴³

All that said, the police are not permitted to search and seize anyone or anything until they have announced their presence.

6. What is the knock and announce rule?

Before an officer may execute a California search warrant at your home (or possibly your business⁴⁴), the officer must

• knock on the door,
• announce themself as a law enforcement officer,
• inform you that they have a search warrant, and
• give you enough time to open the door.⁴⁵

It should be noted that the third requirement may technically be completed after you open the door but in either event must be before the officer enters the home.⁴⁶

There is no steadfast rule as to exactly how these knock-notice (also referred to as the “knock and announce rule“) requirements should be executed.  So in order to determine whether the executing officers have legally fulfilled their duties under California’s knock-notice law, the court will look for substantial compliance.

“Substantial compliance,” in its simplest terms, means that the policies underlying the knock and announce requirements are achieved under the circumstances.⁴⁷ These policies include:

1. protecting a homeowner’s privacy,
2. protecting innocent people on the premises,
3. preventing situations that may otherwise encourage a violent confrontation between a homeowner and those who enter their home without notice, and
4. protecting the police from a startled or fearful homeowner/occupant.⁴⁸

The knock-notice rules and the policies behind them are to ensure that if and when the police force entry into your home, it is only because you knowingly refused their entry.

Forced entry

When is it okay for law enforcement officers to enter a home without permission?  After their entry has been refused.

If you (as the owner or occupant) refuse to

• open the door for the officers, or
• permit them into your home,

the police may break in through a door, window, or any other part of the house to execute the California search warrant.⁴⁹ The same holds true if no one is home.⁵⁰

Assuming you are home, there must be some evidence of a refusal before the police may legally force their way in. This is most typically evidenced by either

• an unreasonable delay in responding to the officers’ request to enter⁵¹ (which must be determined based on the facts of the specific case), or
• an outright refusal where you tell the police that you will not open the door.⁵²

Some examples of situations where California courts have held that unlawful forced entries took place include:

• where knock-notice requirements were not fulfilled (for example, although the officer announced their presence, they did not state their purpose)⁵³
• where the officer simultaneously announced their presence and forced entry without giving the homeowner the opportunity to comply or refuse⁵⁴
• where the forceful entry was only 20 seconds after the officers otherwise complied with the knock-notice rules.⁵⁵
• where knock and announce rules were not followed when the officer entered the home to secure it while the warrant was being obtained⁵⁶
• where the officer announced that they were a police officer (without stating his purpose) and only after they had already forced entry.⁵⁷

There are, of course, certain times when officers are permitted to execute a California search warrant by forcing their entry even without complying with the knock-notice requirements.

Exceptions to California’s knock-notice rule

The following are some of the most common exceptions to the knock and announce requirement:

• consent (if you consent to the officer’s entry, the officer does not need to proceed with knock-notice requirements)⁵⁸
• public places (knock and announce rules are designed to respect your privacy in your home – there is no similar privacy right in a public place)⁵⁹
• exigent circumstances (“exigent circumstances” basically mean that “time is of the essence”).

When exigent circumstances are present, the knock-notice requirements may be waived. This is most typically the case where police suspect that those inside the home

• may arm themselves, or
• destroy the drugs

if they first knock and announce their presence.

There is no blanket exception for exigent circumstances, as each case must be independently evaluated.⁶⁰ The judge will likely excuse a knock-notice violation

“[I]f the specific facts known to the officer before his entry are sufficient to support his good faith belief that compliance will increase his peril, frustrate the arrest, or permit the destruction of evidence[.]”⁶¹

Absent one of these recognized exceptions, a knock-notice violation may render any subsequent search and seizure unreasonable, and therefore, illegal.⁶² When a search and/or seizure is illegal, the prosecution will be prevented from using any of the seized evidence against you at trial.⁶³

7. What is a motion to suppress evidence?

The most common challenge to a search warrant lies in a California Penal Code 1538.5 PC motion to suppress evidence. This motion may be filed if you wish to

1. recover seized evidence, or
2. exclude seized evidence from your trial.

A California criminal defense attorney may file an “unreasonable search and seizure” Penal Code 1538.5 motion based on any of the following facts:

• that the California search warrant was insufficient on its face (this issue could also be raised in a motion to quash the warrant)
• that there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant (raised in either a motion to quash or traverse)
• that the seized property or other evidence was not specifically described in the search warrant (for example, the officers seized non-deadly weapons when the warrant specifically said deadly weapons)
• that the execution of the search warrant was illegal.⁶⁴

If any part of the search was unlawful, any discovered evidence will typically be excluded under this section.  As John Murray, one of Ventura’s top criminal defense attorneys, puts it,

“This ‘exclusionary rule’ is one of the most powerful defenses available.”

If your motion is granted, the prosecution will be prohibited from “using” the seized evidence against you at trial.  A victory on this motion will often lead the prosecutor to dismiss (or at the very least significantly reduce) your charge(s).

Legal References:

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process? 

What is a Due Process Violation? 4th & 14th Amendment 

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

 Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court? 

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case 

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)

Federal –  Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Police BodyCam Footage Release

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Download Here this Recommended Citation