Vincent Martez Trawick v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 09/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-10-0050 V i n c e n t Martez Trawick v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Presiding Vincent violation Court Judge. Martez of § from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t (CC-06-614) Trawick 13A-6-2, was A l a . Code convicted 1 975. of The t r i a l sentenced Trawick t o of 99 y e a r s ' imprisonment. an o r a l motion f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l murder, a court T r a w i c k made and f i l e d a motion CR-10-0050 for a new trial, both which were denied. This appeal followed. The following testified McIntyre evidence to Christmas her i n December cousin Latanya children's door and Severson see that see Severson stated "remind The on that him" 1 this babysitting and night, came 36.) After when he record reflects 2005, leaving Jones told he was talking drink on Trawick saw Severson left, Severson happened. could that was (R. initially unable 2 and not very Trawick got into as an argument; Jones at T r a w i c k was a g a i n , he t h a t S e v e r s o n was and At t r i a l , McIntyre incident occurred. Trawick the "Pooh" got i n Trawick's face d u r i n g the out," the to that and alcoholic before McIntyre Rainey drinking Rainey two that Gregory a s l e e p and Severson of what had December 24, were s p l a s h e d an "sped (R. or was On and children. been talking. argument; Severson residence. McIntyre Trawick his had Severson week Dothan" Severson, "Big children was A trial. children. the Severson Rainey 1 at Zach to loudly. and 2005, Severson them. and following. Vincent "Nookie" requested presented McIntyre's father, with the was was the upset going to 37.) shot m u l t i p l e law to r e c a l l enforcement the exact times was date CR-10-0050 not privy 2006, to the leading the identity State to the of offered arrest and a the $5,000 (C. 246.) T r a w i c k was murder. At which State presented multiple the four b u l l e t s large caliber wounds. The testified Tony to the Officer .40 with following. or as On Kenya Jackson about Frank Meredith with that on M a r c h 6, result of body appeared Police regarding the Severson murder. Jackson 6, Department murder. (R. 183.) a result As Officer Meredith was able Jackson testified to the grand Severson murder. Officer to "intimate Vincent about Jackson testified details" regarding information, Trawick, the d e t a i l s Meredith t e s t i f i e d 3 Department Meredith of Jackson's arrest jury Meredith i n t e r v i e w e d Kenya Officer Luker murder. the Dothan P o l i c e with t o be 2006, O f f i c e r the Severson p r o v i d e d him that caliber. March 2 0 0 6 , he the the evidence .45 or 2010, a Dothan the testified the died 16, State presented either Luker charged with August Severson person p r e s e n t w i t h O f f i c e r F r a n k M e r e d i t h when O f f i c e r interviewed that on February information of the g u i l t y r e c o v e r e d from Severson's bullets, Officer was that In for a r r e s t e d and commenced evidence gunshot reward conviction persons. trial, assailant. that of and the Jackson d i d CR-10-0050 not cooperate with the grand j u r y , The and which that "I of was Jackson goes after Jackson appeared transcript Meredith, reflected law enforcement Jackson's admitted he t o be testified very interview into evidence before scared. with (R. Officer 163.), stated: around in front of Ms. Lucy's[ ] 2 house " S o , b y t h a t t i m e N o o k i e h a d s p o t t e d ... s p o t t e d Big D o t h a n , g o t ... w e n t b e h i n d t h e h o u s e , g o t t h e gun. B i g D o t h a n a n d B o o n e y [ ] p u l l e d b a c k u p ... I g u e s s ... g o t o u t o r w h a t e v e r . Dothan's s t i l l i n the driver's seat. I w e n t t o go a n d g e t d r e s s e d f o r the club. N o o k i e was c o m i n g b a c k a r o u n d a n d I was l i k e boy, what you a b o u t t o d o ? Then I k e p t . . . m y h o m e b o y p i c k e d me u p ... r o d e a r o u n d , s m o k e d some weed. We p u l l e d b a c k u p a b o u t a h o u r ... a h o u r a n d t h i r t y m i n u t e s ... when we p u l l e d u p , I s e e n V i n c e n t T r a w i c k had the handgun p o i n t e d at B i g Dothan. Told h i m t o F--- N , l e t me g e t t h a t . L e t me g e t e v e r y t h i n g o u t t a y o u r p o c k e t s . D o t h a n l i k e , no y o u a i n ' t t a k i n g s - - - f r o m me a n d c h a r g e d h i m . Boom. He s h o t f o u r t i m e s . Dothan h i t the ground. He w a l k e d o v e r t h e r e and s t o o d o v e r him and s h o t him two m o r e t i m e s . A n d t o l d h i m F--- N , I was gonna k i l l you." 3 (C. 188-89.) T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t t h e l a s t name o f " L u c y . " H o w e v e r , J a c k s o n s t a t e d t h a t L u c y ' s h o u s e was a " b o o t l e g g e r h o u s e " a t w h i c h w h i s k e y was s o l d . (C. 190.) 2 3 The identity o f "Booney" i s not 4 clear from the record. CR-10-0050 Jackson caliber .40 also handgun However, testified that was recovered Jackson testified to Officer testified that Meredith h e made because Officer Jackson out of j a i l Jackson testified that Trawick by law into the had a enforcement. evidence. following. false Meredith testified John that Jackson Severson's Cornelius Officer of the interview he Meredith would l e t the Severson wrote t o speak John shoot case. Severson between O f f i c e r Crawford 5 that them that t h e murder, and a (R. and O f f i c e r 351.) The 30, 2006, r e f l e c t s Alex a regarding testified Garlington evidence. Department law enforcement with him that "Nookie" committed into Police Crawford t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w on O c t o b e r told that spoke Jackson to O f f i c e r t h e Dothan Garlington transcript Garlington matter. Jackson with he w a n t e d admitted he s t o r y up. told was statements told Garlington Crawford this he d i d n o t s e e T r a w i c k Crawford murder. a t the time i f he a s s i s t e d w i t h that s t a t i n g that pending regarding he made t h e w h o l e Officer letter that t h a t he h a d a n u n l a w f u l - c o c a i n e - p o s s e s s i o n c a s e a n d o b s t r u c t i o n - o f - j u s t i c e case with and i n the interview t h e w e a p o n was n o t a d m i t t e d Kenya an stated "Nookie" that Trawick CR-10-0050 committed the murder. indicated that that Alex T r a w i c k was i n p r i s o n (R. Alex (C. 1 8 4 . ) Trawick However, t e s t i m o n y i s Vincent Trawick's at brother trial and f o rmurdering h i s g i r l f r i e n d . 151.) Garlington stated i n the t r a n s c r i p t , " [ N o o k i e ] was j u s t t e l l i n g me m o r e o r l e s s o f w h a t h a p p e n e d ; j u s t s a i d t h a t he was i n t h e c a r w i t h 'Big Dothan,' and t h e y went t o F o r d C o u n t r y t o I t h i n k a g i r l named T o n y a ' s h o u s e . A n d um ... ' B i g D o t h a n ' was d r u n k a n d t o l d h i m t h a t u h ... . He w a s n ' t t a k i n g h i m b a c k t o t h e b o t t o m , y o u know a c r o s s town. A n d s o um ... . He s a i d t h a t t h e y g o t i n a c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d u h . . . T h e y was a r g u i n g a n d 'Big D o t h a n ' w e n t t o c a l l i n g h i m names o r w h a t e v e r . So he g o t u p s e t a n d he l e f t a n d w a l k e d . A n d t h e n he j u s t s a i d he was l i k e man, I'm g o n n a g e t h i m . So t h e n e x t d a y when ' B i g D o t h a n ' p u l l e d up i n t h e bottom and got o u t t a t h e c a r , A l e x approached him w i t h a g u n a n d ... s t a r t e d f i r i n g shots." (C. 184.) At t h e end o f t h e i n t e r v i e w , G a r l i n g t o n w o u l d be w i l l i n g (R. i n d i c a t e d t h a t he to t e s t i f y i n court as t o t h i s conversation. testified to following. Garlington 185.) Garlington testified Houston that County at the time jail denied that he murder and denied the of t r i a l f o r a probation spoke with that he he was i n c u s t o d y violation. law enforcement knew 6 Vincent about Trawick at the Garlington Severson's and Alex CR-10-0050 Trawick. letter Garlington denied i n d i c a t i n g that that he sent law enforcement he h a d i n f o r m a t i o n about a the Severson murder. Officer testified killed Will Severson. was speaking with refused with the Dothan that Antonio McKinley told McKinley However, called the to t e s t i f y McKinley. i n contempt him that Vincent record reflects that he Trawick that when remembered the on J u l y record contains 23, 2009, between The t r a n s c r i p t , Nookie questions and, as a r e s u l t , of court. 350), r e f l e c t s slapped Department l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a b o u t t h e S e v e r s o n c a s e , b u t he However, interview Police he s t a t e d t o answer t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s was h e l d (R. Glover that i n the which of transcript Officer Will was McKinley presence a admitted stated women, of the Glover and into that and evidence Big Dothan Nookie was embarrassed. McKinley stated: "And s o w e l l t h a t p a r t i c u l a r n i g h t , o r e v e n i n g ... Me, ' N o o k i e , ' ' F o n z o , ' [ ] a n d s o m e b o d y e l s e , we was a l l s i t t i n g o u t t h e r e c h i l l i n g a n d dranking. A n d w e l l ' B i g D o t h a n ' came up t o go g e t h i m s o m e ' i n . A shot i n s i d e the 'Bootlegger' house. A n d w e l l , on h i s way i n t h e r e ' N o o k i e ' s e e n h i m . Y o u know w h a t 4 4 The identity o f "Fonzo" i s not clear from the record. 7 CR-10-0050 I'm s a y i n g , ' N o o k i e ' was l i k e w e l l , t h e r e t h e n go r i g h t t h e r e . And so h i m and a n o t h e r c a t r a n b e h i n d [ L u c y ' s ] h o u s e a n d m a s k e d up a n d came b a c k . B y t h e t i m e he came b a c k o u t t a t h e h o u s e g o i n g t o his c a r , t h e y d o n e came f r o m b e s i d e t h e h o u s e . W e l l , t h e d u d e t h a t was w i t h ' N o o k i e ' m a s k e d u p , he d i d n ' t do n o t h ' i n . He j u s t s t o o d b a c k , b u t he was t h e r e ... s t a n d i n g t h e r e . ' N o o k i e ' t h e one p u l l e d t h e p i s t o l o u t a n d s h o t t h e man. He s h o t h i m a b o u t t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s I t h i n k . ... " (C. 2 1 2 . ) Latanya several McIntyre times from conversations. her that testified jail Latanya McIntyre Vincent Trawick Trawick and t h a t argues that she r e c o r d e d testified had k i l l e d on a p p e a l McKinley that called some of that McKinley her those told someone. the t r i a l court erred i n a d m i t t i n g as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t h e o u t - o f - c o u r t statements of Garlington, presented at Jackson, the testimony of Garlington, at t r i a l . Jackson, t r i a l ; however, these t h r e e w i t n e s s e s f a i l e d court that response, Trawick the State testimony at t r i a l had and McKinley made 5 court caused the impeached with prior t o law enforcement. murder of Garlington's inconsistent The and M c K i n l e y to testify i n Severson. and In Jackson's statements Further, McKinley 5 State t h e men refused to T r a w i c k c h a l l e n g e s on a p p e a l t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e o u t - o f statements of Garlington, Jackson, and McKinley. 8 CR-10-0050 cooperate the in at and prosecution. contempt of trial court McKinley Ala. R. A. that court. an Evid. an trial (R. to court 333.) The t o be State held requested McKinley that the u n a v a i l a b l e d e c l a r a n t pursuant to Rule 804, to p o l i c e t o be admitted and apparent Jackson's attempt Trawick did, i n fact, McKinley's into to of present pretrial evidence. Statements kill statements allowed witness by find court a hostile posed and trial out-of-court answer q u e s t i o n s subsequently The Garlington's In The refused declare McKinley t o be statement the trial t o Law Enforcement substantive Severson, Garlington the and State evidence presented Jackson. " R u l e 6 0 7 [ , A l a . R. E v i d . , ] a u t h o r i z e s a p a r t y t o b r i n g a g a i n s t h i s own w i t n e s s a l l w e a p o n s f r o m t h e arsenal of impeachment that historically were reserved generally for opposing witnesses. This power r e s i d e s i n the p r o s e c u t i o n i n a c r i m i n a l case, t h e c r i m i n a l d e f e n s e , and any c i v i l p a r t y . One may, f o r e x a m p l e , i m p e a c h h i s own w i t n e s s b y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i t n e s s made a s t a t e m e n t o r p e r f o r m e d an act that i s inconsistent with the witness' present testimony. B i a s - i n d i c a t i n g a c t s or s t a t e m e n t s c o u l d likewise be used for such an attack. Other w i t n e s s e s may be c a l l e d t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e w i t n e s s ' v e r s i o n of the f a c t s . " Trawick preserved his arguments as to this evidence o b j e c t i n g to the admission of t h i s evidence at t r i a l . 1 5 7 , 164, 1 8 8 , 2 3 2 , 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 , 333.) 9 by (R. CR-10-0050 Charles (6th W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama Evidence § 165.01(6)(a) ed. 2009). "'Prior inconsistent statements of a w i t n e s s made o u t o f c o u r t a r e a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence f o r t h e purpose o f showing that the w i t n e s s i s not worthy of b e l i e f -- t h a t is, f o r impeachment purposes. Such e v i d e n c e i s n o t c l a s s e d as h e a r s a y . ' "2 9 A m . J u r . 2 d Evidence, § 500 (1967). (Emphasis supplied.) See a l s o McElroy's Alabama Evidence, supra, a t § 149.01(10). This type statement i s not o f f e r e d t o prove the t r u t h o f t h e t h i n g s s a i d , and so does not f i t t h e d e f i n i t i o n of hearsay." Jones v. S t a t e , 531 So. 2d 1 2 5 1 , 1254 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1988). " I n B u r g i n [ v . S t a t e , 747 S o . 2 d 916 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ] , t h i s c o u r t was p e r s u a d e d b y t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f R u l e 607 o f t h e F e d e r a l Rules o f Evidence, which i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e Alabama Rule: " ' " [ R u l e ] 607 a l l o w s t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o i m p e a c h i t s own w i t n e s s . S e e F e d . R. E v i d . 607. However, ' " t h e government must n o t k n o w i n g l y e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y from a w i t n e s s in order t o impeach him w i t h o t h e r w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e t e s t i m o n y . " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G o m e z - G a l l a r d o , 915 F . 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 5 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W h i t s o n , 587 F.2d 948, 952-53 (9th C i r . 1978)). Impeachment i s i m p r o p e r when e m p l o y e d a s a guise t o present substantive evidence t o the jury that would be otherwise inadmissible. I d . A d e t e r m i n a t i o n must be made a s t o w h e t h e r t h e g o v e r n m e n t e x a m i n e d the witness f o r the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive 10 CR-10-0050 evidence Id."' which i s otherwise inadmissible. " B u r g i n , 747 S o . 2 d a t 9 1 8 , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G i l b e r t , 57 F . 3 d 7 0 9 , 711 ( 9 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . denied, 5 1 5 U.S. 1 1 1 0 , 115 S. C t . 2 2 6 4 , 132 L. E d . 2 d 2 6 9 (1995). As t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d i n B u r g i n , '"[i]t would be an abuse of the rule ... f o r the p r o s e c u t i o n t o c a l l a w i t n e s s t h a t i t [knows w i l l ] not give i t u s e f u l evidence, just so i t [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant i n the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence."' Id." Smith v. S t a t e , Garlington's admissible as 745 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 , 935 and Jackson's as s u b s t a n t i v e impeachment evidence statements evidence, t o show were not "worthy o f b e l i e f . " 1153 (Ala.1998)(holding making the testimony Burgin the a prior Jackson's was statements the trial admitted court that were only Garlington the statement to not admissible and Jackson the As may n o t be this Court jury Further, to present as shown by stated i n Garlington's evidence that as t o J a c k s o n ' s the j u r y that and Trawick statement, the statement i n c o n s i s t e n t statement. 11 denied ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a b o v e , not e n t i t l e d instructed as a p r i o r b u t were witnesses). caused Severson's death. police See L i n d l e y v . S t a t e , 728 S o . 2 d v . S t a t e , 747 S o . 2 d 916 prosecution to 1999). t h a t where a n o n p a r t y w i t n e s s statement, of other ( A l a . C r i m . App. (R. 2 4 5 . ) was See CR-10-0050 Burgin, 747 attempt to statement So. 2d argue at that admitted evidence of guilt impeachment jury inconsistent although instructing Therefore, evidence before for this and inconsistent court's that Later, was substantive sustaining evidence when the was trial deliberations, i t stated: of a witness of an evidence could jury impeachment evidence prosecutor's evidence trial only). statement usable substantive by that prior witness's cured purposes charged (holding impeachment was and 919 State as objections the 918, not i s not purposes, not a by prior used (R. as considered been court "A be guilt." admitted for defendant, cannot accused's was have who of as 455.) substantive the jury as such. B. The McKinley's State presented however, McKinley answer The be State held by McKinley the Law Enforcement as a witness prosecution. McKinley requested a hostile to r e f u s e d to cooperate at t r i a l questions subsequently Statement witness that and in the contempt trial find court 12 trial declare to be A l a . R. Evid. an The trial; refused court. McKinley d e c l a r a n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 804, and The of at (R. to court 333.) McKinley to unavailable trial court CR-10-0050 allowed McKinley's p r e t r i a l into evidence. evidence However, f o r t h e r e a s o n s 804(a)(2), unavailable concerning expressed below, i f he A l a . R. o r she the subject Evid., "persists matter designates this i n refusing a declarant i n refusing to of the declarant's a n o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t t o do s o . " persisted after t o p o l i c e t o be a d m i t t e d was n o t a d m i s s i b l e . Rule despite statement t o answer statement Certainly, the questions testify McKinley of the State b e i n g o r d e r e d t o do s o a n d w a s , t h e r e f o r e , u n a v a i l a b l e . However, admissible former evidence of under Rule sworn the death, statements of personal or family pertinent part, a 2) a s t a t e m e n t impending McKinley's unsworn as prior 8 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , testimony, 3) declarant's statement statement made against statements o n l y i f i t i s 1) under belief interest, or of 4) history. t o law enforcement i s ,in follows: "And s o w e l l t h a t p a r t i c u l a r n i g h t , o r e v e n i n g ... Me, ' N o o k i e , ' ' F o n z o ' a n d s o m e b o d y e l s e , we was a l l s i t t i n g out t h e r e c h i l l i n g and d r a n k i n g . And w e l l ' B i g D o t h a n ' came up t o go g e t h i m s o m e ' i n . A shot i n s i d e the 'Bootlegger' house. A n d w e l l , on h i s way i n t h e r e ' N o o k i e ' s e e n h i m . Y o u know w h a t I'm s a y i n g , ' N o o k i e ' was l i k e w e l l , t h e r e t h e n go r i g h t t h e r e . And so h i m and a n o t h e r c a t r a n b e h i n d [ L u c y ' s ] h o u s e a n d m a s k e d up a n d came b a c k . By t h e t i m e he came b a c k o u t t a t h e h o u s e g o i n g t o 13 i s CR-10-0050 his c a r , t h e y d o n e came f r o m b e s i d e t h e h o u s e . W e l l , t h e d u d e t h a t was w i t h ' N o o k i e ' m a s k e d u p , h e d i d n ' t do n o t h ' i n . He j u s t s t o o d b a c k , b u t he was t h e r e ... s t a n d i n g t h e r e . ' N o o k i e ' t h e one p u l l e d t h e p i s t o l o u t a n d s h o t t h e man. He s h o t h i m a b o u t t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s I t h i n k . ... " (C. 2 1 2 . ) The State argues that the statement McKinley's pecuniary or proprietary 804(b)(3), A l a . R. E v i d . , "A s t a t e m e n t to which person McKinley's unless believing statement statement related of this Further, reward trial, would that a n o t have was n o t a g a i n s t h i s p e r s o n a l interest. at t r i a l that, McKinley was that of the g u i l t y a t t h e t i m e he made h e was i n c o u r t f o r m a t t e r s of f e l o n y escape. f o r information Therefore, interest However, as d i s c u s s e d above, conviction position so c o n t r a r y i t t o be t r u e . " to law enforcement, to a charge against a statement as: of i t s making i n the declarant's In fact, McKinley t e s t i f i e d the d e f i n e s such pecuniary or p r o p r i e t a r y made t h e s t a t e m e n t was i n t e r e s t pursuant to Rule was a t t h e t i m e the declarant's reasonable which above (R. 4 3 8 . ) already At the time i n prison. (R. 4 3 8 . ) the S t a t e had o f f e r e d would person lead i n this a t t h e t i m e M c K i n l e y made t h e s t a t e m e n t 14 $5,000 to the arrest or persons c o n t r a r y t o h i sp e c u n i a r y and p r o p r i e t a r y a and case. i t was n o t i n t e r e s t b e c a u s e he CR-10-0050 would have wished the charges reward. Ct. to pending receive a g a i n s t him Compare D e w o l f e v. App. 2011)(holding prohibited two witnesses had declarations 295 Ga. been person's 249, statement individual who not is for due the t o be, and a new 1142 offered (Fla. Dist. i t they heard the the t h e f t the statements W i l l i a m s v. (2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l d i n g this to Rule f o r e g o i n g , the i s hereby, vehicle was self-serving 804, A l a . R. judgment r e v e r s e d and of with when committed and the erred that the State were State, that third as not self- statement Evid. the the the was 6 trial case court remanded trial. R E V E R S E D AND Windom, concurs 268 3d court because victim's Therefore, on the n a m i n g someone o t h e r t h a n d e f e n d a n t admissible pursuant Based So. testifying interest), S.E.2d stole incriminatory). trial c o n v i c t e d of 671 62 t h a t he h a d against penal App. State, from from and/or to r e c e i v e that unavailable witness state defendant assistance REMANDED. Kellum, i n the and Burke, J J . , concur. Joiner, J., result. A l t h o u g h T r a w i c k a r g u e s t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d and r e n d e r e d , p u r s u a n t t o L o c k h a r t v. N e l s o n , 488 U.S. 33 (1988), this Court may not render Trawick's conviction. 6 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.