Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
05/02/2018 01:45 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2018
1:54 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license."
- MOVED CSHB 408(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
04/04/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/18 (H) STA, JUD
04/26/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/01/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/18 (H) -- Delayed to 5/2/18 --
05/02/18 (H) STA AT 1:45 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux,
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 1 on behalf of House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel;
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
408.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:54:32 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:54 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Wool, Birch, and Knopp
were present at the call to order. Representative Tuck arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 408-REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
1:54:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to revocation of a
driver's license."
1:55:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
30-LS1554\A.6, Martin, 5/2/18 which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 3, through page 2, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 28.35.030(o) is amended to read:
(o) Upon request, the department shall review a
driver's license revocation imposed under (n)(3) of
this section and
(1) may restore the driver's license if
(A) the license has been revoked for a
period of at least 10 years;
(B) the person has not been convicted of a
driving-related criminal offense since the license was
revoked; and
(C) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility;
(2) shall restore the driver's license if
(A) the person has been granted limited
license privileges under AS 28.15.201(g) and has
successfully driven under that limited license for
three years without having the limited license
privileges revoked;
(B) the person has successfully completed a
court-ordered treatment program under AS 28.35.028 or
a rehabilitative treatment program under
AS 28.15.201(h);
(C) the person has not been convicted of a
violation of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 or a similar
law or ordinance of this or another jurisdiction since
the license was revoked;
(D) the person is otherwise eligible to
have the person's driving privileges restored as
provided in AS 28.15.211; in an application under this
subsection, a person whose license was revoked for a
violation of AS 28.35.030(n) or 28.35.032(p) is not
required to submit compliance as required under
AS 28.35.030(h) or 28.35.032(l); and
(E) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility;
(3) may restore the driver's license if
(A) the license has been revoked for a
period of at least 10 years;
(B) the person has not been convicted of a
driving-related criminal offense
(i) in the 10 years preceding the request
for restoration of the driver's license; and
(ii) since the license was revoked, and, as
part of the same act or criminal episode for which the
person was convicted of the driving-related criminal
offense, the person was not convicted of a crime under
AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.170, 11.41.200, 11.41.210,
11.41.280, or 11.41.282 or a law or ordinance in
another jurisdiction with similar elements;
(C) as part of the same act or criminal
episode for which the person was convicted or
previously convicted for purposes of (n) of this
section, the person was not convicted of a crime under
AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.170, 11.41.200, 11.41.210,
11.41.280, or 11.41.282 or a law or ordinance in
another jurisdiction with similar elements; and
(D) the person provides proof of financial
responsibility."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reminded members that the committee heard
HB 408 at its last meeting. She became aware that a number of
people outside the committee had expressed concern that [HB 408]
may give a pathway for license restoration to someone who had
killed or seriously injured someone during the [DUI] causing the
initial revocation or for subsequent driving-related offenses.
Amendment 1 would allow a pathway for a person who has not
killed or seriously injured someone during the event [DUI]
causing the initial revocation or for subsequent driving-related
offenses to have his/her driver's license restored. She added
the caveat was that the person must have a "clean" driving
record for ten years.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that Amendment 1 would make it
more difficult for those desiring to reinstate their driver's
licenses than the language in the original bill.
1:57:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for clarification if it was more
complicated to do so under Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that it would be more difficult
to obtain the license restoration since it would not allow a
person who had killed or seriously injured someone in the DUI or
in the driving-related offense subsequent to the revocation to
have a pathway.
1:58:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that under
Amendment 1, a driver whose license was revoked has two paths to
restore his/her license. One pathway would be to have ten years
of a clean driving record so long as the original offense(s) did
not lead to someone being hurt or killed. The second pathway
would be for those who had killed or seriously injured someone
during a DUI or in the driving-related offense subsequent to the
revocation; however, it would be more difficult to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered no. She clarified that under
current law a person whose license was revoked and who had a
subsequent driving-related criminal offense would not have any
pathway to restore his/her license except if the person was
convicted of another DUI and was referred to [and completed] a
therapeutic court process. In that instance, the driver could
obtain a limited license and if he/she remained clean would be
eligible for a regular driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that the original bill, HB 408,
would provide a way for a person whose driver's license had been
permanently revoked to be restored so long as the person did not
have any driving-related offenses for 10 years preceding the
request for license restoration. Under current law, a driver
with a DUI revocation who was subsequently convicted of another
DUI while driving with a suspended license (DWSL) but was
referred to and completed a therapeutic court program could have
driving privileges restored. The bill would fix this
inconsistency. She referred to AS 28.35.030(o)(1)(B), which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(B) the person has not been convicted of a driving-
related criminal offense in the 10 years preceding the
request for restoration of the license [SINCE THE
LICENSE WAS REVOKED]; and
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reiterated that Amendment 1 would address
the concern that the penalty was too lenient for someone whose
DUI or whose subsequent driving-related offense after the
driver's license revocation led to serious physical injury or
death of another person.
2:01:47 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, acknowledged that Representative LeDoux has
appropriately explained Amendment 1. He offered that a number
of scenarios could occur during a lifetime driver's license
revocation under AS 28.35.030(n)(3), including subsequent
driving-related criminal offenses.
MR. SMITH reiterated that the goal of HB 408 was to provide a
pathway for those with a lifetime driver's license revocation,
who had been convicted of a driving-related offense after the
revocation. Amendment 1 would put up a side bar and prohibit
anyone who had a DUI that had killed or seriously injured
someone from having their driver's license restored. That
prohibition exists in current law, he said. The trigger
prohibiting people from having a driver's license restored is
the post revocation driving-related criminal offense, which
ranges from a person who was driving with a suspended or revoked
license or to a person who was convicted of criminally-negligent
homicide or vehicular manslaughter.
2:03:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for clarification whether a person
who had several DUIs but was "clean" for 10 years, had no
further driving-related offenses, would be prohibited from
driver's license restoration. He related a scenario that had
happened several years ago, in which a person driving a
passenger bus ran into a car who had slowed to turn left at
Portage Glacier [in which people were killed].
MR. SMITH answered if one of the person's DUIs resulted in
manslaughter or criminally-negligent homicide that [the person
would be prohibited from reinstating his/her driver's license.]
2:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP interjected that the bus driver had not
been charged with a DUI. He asked whether the driver would be
eligible for license restoration if the driver had subsequently
been convicted of additional DUIs and the person's driver's
license was suspended.
MR. SMITH related his understanding that the person would be
eligible to have the driver's license restored so long as the
criminally-negligent homicide was not connected to a DUI.
2:06:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he had a sense that the exemptions [in
Amendment 1] would defeat the purpose of the bill.
MR. SMITH disagreed that Amendment 1 would defeat the bill. He
reiterated the intent of bill was to provide a pathway for those
who had a DUI license revocation with a subsequent driving
offense to have their driver's license restored after 10 years
with a clean record. Amendment 1 would allow that group to be
eligible for a license so long as they had not killed or
seriously injured someone during the course of DUIs that led to
the revocation or in subsequent driving-related criminal
activity. In further response to Representative Knopp, he said
if the person killed or seriously injured a person during a DUI
that led to the revocation or in subsequent driving-related
offense(s), the person would not be able to get his/her license
restored.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Representative Wool.
2:09:11 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to an [e-mail] dated May 1, 2018
from [Minta C.] Montalbo [to Mr. Greg Smith] in members' packets
with statistics for the number of drivers who reoffend after
having their driver's licenses restored. He said that the total
number of approved felony termination of revocation applicants
from 2012 to the present was 171 with two reoffenders of DUI or
refusals after an approved application. He characterized [the
reoffenders] as negligible. He said he appreciated the
information, which he found supportive.
2:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised members that nothing in Amendment
1 would make it more difficult [to apply for driver's license
restoration] than current law; however, she acknowledged that
Amendment 1 was more restrictive than the language in HB 408.
MR. SMITH agreed, but highlighted that Amendment 1 would allow a
small group of people to have their driver's licenses restored.
2:12:49 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked whether someone convicted of vehicular
homicide or manslaughter would be subject to lifetime driver's
license revocation.
MR. SMITH related his understanding that lifetime driver's
license revocation was primarily tied to felony DUIs. He
recalled the e-mail referenced earlier had mentioned one case of
vehicular homicide or manslaughter led to permanent driver's
license revocation. In further response to Representative Wool,
he agreed the bill would apply to someone who had a felony DUI
revocation and a post-revocation driving offense, but who had a
clean record for a minimum of ten years.
ACTING CHAIR WOOL reiterated who would be eligible to have
his/her driver's license restored: a person with a felony DUI
revocation, who has a clean ten-year post-revocation period.
MR. SMITH agreed.
2:15:15 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL related a scenario in which a person with a
DUI revocation drove with a suspended license in year five. He
asked whether this would start a new 10-year period in terms of
establishing a clean record.
MR. SMITH answered yes.
2:15:46 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked for confirmation that Amendment 1 would
prohibit someone from who was convicted of a DUI that seriously
hurt or killed a person from having his/her driver's license
restored.
MR. SMITH answered yes.
2:16:17 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked what constituted a "serious injury."
MR. SMITH said the sponsor collaborated with the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), who preferred that the bill refer to
specific statutes. He referred to page 2, lines 14-16 and 20-21
of Amendment 1, to AS [Alaska Statute] 28.35.030(o)(3)(B)(ii), "
... the person was not convicted of a crime under AS 11.41.100 -
11.41.170, 11.41.200, 11.41.210, 11.41.280, or 11.41.282 ....
He related that AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.170 refers to murder in the
first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter,
criminally-negligent homicide, murder of an unborn child,
manslaughter of an unborn child, and criminally-negligent
homicide of an unborn child. He further related that AS
11.41.200 - 11.41.210 refers to assault in the first degree and
assault in the second degree, which have a serious physical
injury component; and AS 11.41.280, or 11.41.282 refer to
assault of an unborn child in the first and second degree, which
also have a serious physical injury component, as well.
2:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that under current
law a person whose license was revoked could apply to have
driver's privileges restored if the person has not been
convicted of a driving-related offense for ten years.
MR. SMITH agreed.
2:18:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that Amendment 1
would allow persons convicted of a driving-related offense after
a felony conviction to apply to have their driver's privileges
restored if they had not been convicted of a driving-related
offense for ten years; however, the driver's license revocation
would be permanent if the person's license revocation was due to
a serious injury or death.
MR. SMITH responded that under Amendment 1, if the person's
license revocation was due to a serious injury or death but the
person was later convicted of a subsequent driving-related
offense, the person would not be eligible for license
restoration, which is current law; that license revocation is
permanent for that group. He referred members to a chart in
their packets dated May 2, 2018, prepared by Representative
LeDoux's office.
2:20:16 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL referred to [an e-mail dated May 1, 2018, from
Minta Montalbo that the committee discussed earlier] which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
DUI/REFUSAL misdemeanor:
1st offense -90 days
2nd offense - 1 year
3rd offense - 3 years
4th or more offense - 5 years
Typically, by the 3rd offense or more within a 10 year
period, the charge is a felony, but we have seen
multiple offenses charged as a misdemeanor.
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked for clarification on whether the
decision to impose a five-year or lifetime revocation is up to
the judge.
MR. SMITH said he did not believe so. He deferred to the Alaska
Court System but related his understanding that the felony DUI
is triggered when the person has three DUIs within a ten-year
period. He speculated that perhaps a person could get a fourth
misdemeanor offense if it was spread out beyond the ten-year
period.
2:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for further clarification from the
department.
2:21:41 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel; Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
responded that the court does not have any discretion with a
felony DUI and must revoke the driver's license permanently.
She stated that Mr. Smith was correct that there could be
multiple misdemeanor DUIs; however, if the DUIs were spread out
over a long period of time they would not constitute a felony.
2:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the committee was
interpreting the bill [and Amendment 1] correctly. He related
his understanding that if a person reoffended during the ten-
year period it would reset the clock for another ten years;
although he thought the penalty [in Amendment 1] might be too
tough for post-conviction driving offenses, but not for the
[original DUI convictions] that resulted in deaths.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that resetting the clock for ten
years might seem like a long period of time, but [under current
law] without HB 408 or Amendment 1, the clock would not ever be
reset with no path for the person to have driving privileges
restored.
2:23:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP acknowledged that the [bill and Amendment
1] was a step forward; however, this also allowed the committee
to have the conversation to discuss that the clock should be
reset regardless of the charges.
ACTING CHAIR WOOL stated that Representative LeDoux pointed out
at a previous meeting that although current law imposes a
permanent license revocation, if the person was convicted of yet
another DUI the driver could use the therapeutic court process
to restore the person's driver's license privileges. He
questioned the inconsistency of the two situations.
2:24:21 PM
MS. MEADE interpreted Amendment 1, which would provide three
avenues for a person to restore his/her driver's license under
AS 28.35.030(o). She referred to page 1, line 6 of Amendment 1,
which states current law, AS 28.35.030(o)(1), that would allow
restoration of a driver's license if the person has not had any
driving-related criminal offenses for 10 years since the date of
revocation. The person must also provide proof of insurance,
which is a stipulation for all reinstatements. That language
existed before and it exists now, she said. It was added when
the permanent revocation language was adopted by the legislature
as a means to provide a pathway for restoring driving
privileges.
MS. MEADE related that a second pathway to restore a driver's
license revocation is provided under AS 28.35.030(o)(2), which
she noted was current law. The provision provides that if a
person had successfully completed therapeutic court in 2002,
that the person could apply for a limited driver's license, and
after three years with no driver's license violations the DMV
could restore driver's privileges. She clarified that this path
was untouched by HB 408.
MS. MEADE related HB 408 provides a third pathway related to a
person who was convicted of driving while license suspended
(DWLS) after revocation, who has been excluded under AS
28.35.030(o)(1) from obtaining driver's license restoration.
She explained the DMV can restore a revoked driver's license if
the person has not been convicted of any driving offenses in the
10 years prior to the application; however; [Amendment 1] added
the stipulation that any subsequent driving-related conviction
cannot have resulted in death or serious injury. Further, AS
28.35.030(o)(3)(C) also added language that that the person
could not have [seriously injured] or killed someone in any of
DUIs that led up to the felony DUI. She reiterated that if a
person had a [a subsequent driving-related offense] after a
felony DUI conviction, the person could apply under AS
28.35.030(o)(3) to have his/her driver's license restored. She
offered her belief that the stipulation that the language in
Amendment 1 that the driver must have "a clean record" for 10
years before applying for driver's license restoration was added
to be consistent with AS 28.35.030(o)(1).
2:27:04 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL related a scenario in which a driver had three
DUIs, triggering a felony lifetime driver's license revocation,
with one DUI that resulted in [serious] bodily injury. He
related his understanding that person would never be eligible to
have his/her driver's license restored even after having ten
years of driving without any driving-related offenses.
MS. MEADE agreed that was how she interpreted the language on
page 2, lines 18-21 of Amendment 1, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(C) as part of the same act or criminal episode for
which the person was convicted or previously convicted
for purposes of (n) of this section, the person was
not convicted of a crime under AS 11.41.100 - 29
11.41.170, 11.41.200, 11.41.210, 11.41.280, or
11.41.282 or a law or ordinance in another
jurisdiction with similar elements; and
MS. MEADE offered her belief that the wording was intended to
apply to any of the DUIs that led to the person being charged
under subsection (n) of this section. She stated this language
was essentially identifying a felony DUI. She added that if the
person was proceeding under AS 28.35.030(o)(3) that none of the
DUIs may have resulted in [serious bodily injury or death].
2:28:16 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL recalled that Mr. Smith previously identified
violations and the definition of assault, including intentional
physical harm. He was unsure of the threshold of injury that
would result in permanent driver's license revocation.
MS. MEADE said that a person seeking a pathway [for license
restoration] under AS 28.35.030(o)(3), after conviction of
assault in the first or second degree, which had resulted in
serious bodily harm [or death] in connection with the DUI would
be disqualified under AS 28.35.030(o)(3). However, that person
could still apply for license restoration under AS
28.35.030(o)(1) if the person was convicted of felony DUI, but
subsequently was not convicted of [any driver-related] offenses
after his/her license was revoked. Under that scenario, the
current law would apply, and the person could apply for driver's
license restoration. She clarified that the provisions related
to death, manslaughter, or assault in connection with a DUI
would only apply under the language added by this bill; that the
person had not been convicted of any driving-related criminal
offenses since his/her license revocation.
2:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that a person
[would be eligible to apply] for a driver's license restoration
after ten years if the person "stays clean" [that the person had
not been convicted of any driving-related criminal offenses];
however, if the person was convicted of a moving violation
[after the felony DUIs], the person would need to wait an
additional ten years [to be eligible for license restoration]
unless the original crime resulted in the death or serious
injury, in which case the license revocation would be permanent.
MS. MEADE answered yes. She commented that manslaughter,
criminal-negligence, homicide, or serious-bodily harm felony
convictions would be considered when a person sought the
[license restoration] pathway under AS 28.35.030(o)(3) because
the person had also incurred some type of driving-related
criminal offense since the revocation occurred.
2:31:02 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked for further clarification for the person
with a driver's license revocation [due to DUI felony
conviction] who subsequently was convicted of an assault not
related to a motor vehicle offense; for example, the person got
into a fight. He asked whether that would apply or if these
provisions only related to motor vehicle offenses.
MS. MEADE responded that the language in Amendment 1 specifies
the other criminal offenses must be as part of the same act or
criminal episode for which the person had a driving-related
criminal offense or DUI conviction.
2:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said that the explanations helped
considerably.
2:31:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reviewed the evaluation chart [in members'
packets; prepared by the office of Representative LeDoux dated
May 2, 2018], in which the check mark refers to a conviction of
DUI/refusal. He referred to scenario 2, listing 3 DUIs [noting
the heading indicates that it] leads to permanent revocation
under (n)(3), which is a felony conviction. The person would be
eligible for driver's license restoration after a "clean" record
of 10 years. He referred to scenario 1 in which the person had
two DUIs; however, the third DUI resulted in a death or serious-
physical injury (D/SPI). He noted the person must have a clean
record with no subsequent moving violation to be eligible to
have his/her driving privileges restored. He referred to
scenario 4, in which the first DUI offense resulted in D/SPI,
followed by two more DUIs. He asked whether a person could be
convicted of a felony DUI on the first offense.
MS. MEADE responded that if the person caused a death or serious
physical injury during a DUI would receive multiple charges;
however, the DUI would not constitute a higher level of crime in
itself. She stated the person could be convicted of first time
DUI plus manslaughter or have a second DUI plus criminally-
negligent homicide; however, it would still be considered a
misdemeanor DUI, but the other charge would be considered a
felony.
2:33:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related a scenario in which someone whose
first DUI resulted in death or serious physical injury and the
person was also charged with manslaughter, but had no further
DUIs, whether the person would be subject to a lifetime
suspension of his/her driver's license or if the court would
consider the charges separately.
MS. MEADE answered that the court would consider the two charges
separately.
2:34:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:35:19 PM
A roll call vote was begun. Representatives Knopp, LeDoux, and
Wool voted in favor of Amendment 1.
ACTING CHAIR WOOL asked for an at-ease.
2:35:59 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:36:31 PM
ACTING CHAIR WOOL voided the roll call vote on Amendment 1.
2:36:51 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Knopp, Wool,
LeDoux, and Birch voted in favor of Amendment 1. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-0.
2:38:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to report HB 408, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no further objection, CSHB
408(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
2:38:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:38
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|