Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2016 SKPC 116

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2016 SKPC 116 Date: September 30, 2016 Information: 44666833 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Anthony Robert Regnier Appearing: Mr. C. Bliss For the Crown Mr. B. Beaven For the Accused JUDGMENT M.M.

BANIAK , J [ 1 ] The accused was charged as follows: 1) on or about the 2 nd day of August, A.D. 2015 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did have in his possession property, to wit: motor vehicle the property of Madeleine Sirois of a value exceeding five thousand dollars knowing that all or part of the property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to

section 355 (

b) of the Criminal Code ; and

2) in committing an assault referred to in

section 270, carry, use or threaten to use a weapon or an imitation of one, contrary to

section 270.01(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . Facts [ 2 ] The Crown’s first witness was Madeleine Sirois. She drove from Regina around midnight of August 1, 2015, and parked in front of 302 Vancouver Avenue North, Saskatoon. In her own words: Well, I arrived late because I had worked, and then I drove in. So I got in probably about midnight with my family. And then we got ready for bed. I wanted to go to bed. I checked my vehicle probably about 2 a.m. and made sure to lock it, and then I went to bed.

I was doing pictures in the morning, so I got up about 6, got ready to go, went outside with my keys and stared at a blank spot where my car should have been. And I stared at it for a bit kind of confused because it was early in the morning. I went inside, called the police to notify them that my car had been stolen, and by then they had said they had found who stole it. It was totalled.

It was already at the impound. [1] All the vehicle’s contents were gone. [ 3 ] The Crown’s second witness was Sergeant Richard Bueckert, a thirteen year member of the Saskatoon Police Service. [ 4 ] On August 2, 2015, Sergeant Bueckert received a call about a vehicle travelling “at a high rate of speed at the Woodlawn Cemetery here in Saskatoon.” [2] The call came in at approximately 3:52 a.m. Sergeant Bueckert responded to the call: [I] Drove into the cemetery, located a darker coloured Santa Fe in the north end of the cemetery. As I approached, it drove towards me, and I had my window rolled down.

The driver of the vehicle had their window rolled down, and as we passed and we were almost at a complete stop, the driver looked at me, said, “Fuck you,” and took off southbound through the cemetery. I U-balled. Sorry, I took a U- turn. I radioed in asking for additional help as I saw at least six occupants in this vehicle. [3] [ 5 ] The vehicle continued to drive erratically. At one point it slowed down sufficient to allow one female to exit, and then it sped off at a high rate of speed, at some points going more than 90/kph. It was going through stop signs.

Just as Sergeant Bueckert was about to call off the pursuit “I see a big cloud of dust, and I knew that vehicle had collided with another vehicle at Avenue C and 19 th Street right by the Salvation Army.” [4] Time of the collision was 4:08 a.m. [ 6 ] Following the collision, Sergeant Bueckert saw two people fleeing westbound on 19 th Street and saw two more heading down Avenue C southbound. Other police units, including the Canine Unit, started arriving at the scene. [ 7 ] Constable Seidel testified next. He has been a police officer with the Saskatoon Police Service for six years.

He arrived at the scene of the accident at 4:20 a.m. When he arrived, he heard over his radio, Constable Panamaroff, who was the canine officer that day, yelling at a male. He indicated his location was 17 th Street and Avenue G. [ 8 ] Constable Panamaroff advised Constable Seidel that a male and female, whom he had tracked, were inside the backyard. Constable Seidel saw the male and female in the yard. Believing the pair to be the suspect from the accident scene, Constable Seidel decided to follow them: . . . so I went to open a gate on the north side of that yard.

As soon as I opened up that gate, there was three rather large dogs that ran right by me and went straight to Constable Panamaroff and his dog and started biting both of them. Constable Panamaroff was asking for

help. There was other officers that had arrived in the meantime. We all came towards him. We were able to wrangle up the dogs. [5] [ 9 ] The owner of the dogs was identified as the accused.

He had some dog bites “. . . on both his left thigh and his right thigh which I believe came from our canine dog” [6] . [ 10 ] Constable Seidel was unable to say if Constable Panamaroff or his dog Kato received any injuries. [ 11 ] The next Crown witness was Constable Edward Panamaroff, who was qualified as an expert witness who is a dog master as well as someone who has expertise with police service dogs, having been with the Canine Unit for nine years. [ 12 ] Since May of 2012 he had been working with his dog Kato. He was asked to explain the science behind tracking with scent: . . .

Everyone has a unique scent that they have. Just like we have unique fingerprints, every person’s scent is unique as well. Kato is trained to track only human scent. As of right now, we are all shedding skin cells which contains a unique scent to each and every one of us, and that is what Kato is smelling as he was tracking. That is the scent he was following. [7] [ 13 ] Kato is trained to track only human scent, and trained to track on all surfaces - grass, dirt, gravel, pavement, asphalt, ice and snow. [ 14 ] With respect to criminal apprehension: Kato has gone through criminal apprehension training.

The focus on that is to target the outer limbs of the body being the arms and legs since this keeps him away from the vital areas of the body.

Kato is taught to engage the suspect and hold until he is told to release minimizing any kind of further damage. [8] [ 15 ] Constable Panamaroff characterized a police dog as being, at most, an intermediate weapon on the use of force chart: . . . the dog could be seen as an intermediate weapon since when he does engage someone, it will cause injury, but it’s not considered a lethal injury, hence why I would be considered at most an intermedial weapon. [9] [ 16 ] Constable Panamaroff was asked about his involvement on August 2, 2015.

I will quote his answer in its entirety as it succinctly outlines his involvement from the time he heard about Sergeant Bueckert’s pursuit to the time he engaged the accused: Yes, sir. On that day, I was working as a Canine Unit when I heard a broadcast over the air from Sergeant Bueckert they had located a suspicious vehicle in a cemetery. He attempted to stop this vehicle. It had numerous occupants inside, and it took off on him starting a criminal pursuit. As it was leaving the cemetery, it caused property damage as the pursuit continued onto the street.

I did not see the pursuit other than what was being broadcast over the air until Idylwyld and 33 rd Street where I saw the pursuit vehicle turning north. At this point, a female jumped out. Two patrol cars were ahead of me, and that is when I took a third position in pursuit. As canine, my mandate is to be close by in case someone flees from the vehicle. The pursuit ultimately went westbound to Avenue C and then southbound all the way to 19th Street. During this time, I could not see the pursuit vehicle due to all the dust being kicked up by the vehicles.

As I was approaching 19th Street and Avenue C, it was voiced over the air that the pursuit vehicle had crashed into another car unrelated to the pursuit causing injuries. As I came up to the intersections, there was a voice over the radio again that two people are running west on 19th Street, and that’s where I was. I could not see anyone. And two others had fled from the driver’s side cutting through a yard into the west alley of Avenue C. I immediately went to that alley

and looked down it, and I could see two people running down the alley, one wearing a grey top, one wearing a black top. I proceeded a little further west to see if they came out. I could not see them, but I held that position so they could not cross Avenue D -- or sorry, excuse me – could not cross 19th Street. At that point, a perimeter car came to relieve me of that position, and I returned to the alley, and I harnessed Kato in his tracking harness, attached his 20-foot line.

I took him to the area where I last saw the suspects fleeing, and he immediately indicated on human scent and began tracking south in the alley. Kato indicated a westbound yard crossing to 420 Avenue D and then proceeded to track southbound on the sidewalk until 18th Street. The track then continued westbound on 18th Street until we got to the first alley. The track continued northbound in this alley until the middle of the block at which point Kato tracked mid block coming out onto the 400 block of Avenue E.

Kato continued tracking southbound on the sidewalk through the 400 block of Avenue E into the 500 block of Avenue E and a yard crossing through 519 Avenue E to the west. Once in this alley, we continued another yard crossing through 514 Avenue F westbound. When we came onto the street of Avenue F, Kato tracked across it indicated another westbound yard crossing through 521 Avenue F. In the next alley over which would be the west alley of the 500 block of Avenue F, Kato indicated track continuing westbound coming out onto the 500 block of Avenue G facing 513 and 515 Avenue G.

Kato continued tracking through these residences into the west alley of Avenue G and now southbound in this alley. From that point, we tracked southbound until we got to 17th Street. Kato continued tracking across the street and onto the grassy boulevard. As I was crossing the street, I could see ahead of me two people matching the description that I saw initially fleeing the scene, one being a male wearing a grey top, one being a female wearing a black top. I continued moving towards them, and when I was approximately 40 feet away, I challenged them with the police challenge of “Police. Stop.

Don’t run or the dog will bite you.” They both looked back clearly at me and immediately began running. I chased after them again, gave them another police warning of “Police. You’re under arrest. Stop or I’ll send the dog.” The female stopped at this time, but the male continued running in a southeast direction. At this point, I was still hanging onto Kato’s leash, and I sent him for the apprehension of the male since he was still actively resisting and fleeing and refusing to stop for me.

I intended to handcuff the female and then go assist Kato with the male, but I observed the male reach the fence and jump overtop of it or attempt to. Kato engaged him on his right leg, but it ended up this male had jumped on top of the gate, and it opened at this time, and then he fell between the gate and the fence. He began slamming him against the fence and gate. At this point, I did not have any contact with the female, and I went to help my partner Kato. As I got up to the gate entrance, the suspect male had already began dragging himself into his yard, and Kato was still engaged on his right leg.

I grabbed the leash, began pulling back yelling at him to stop fighting my dog because now I could see he had Kato’s head in his hands trying to twist it and push it off. He continued to do this. I yelled the same command again at which point the male suspect began yelling, “Sic him. Bite him.” I was confused at this point as to why until three dogs from the yard came in and began attacking myself and Kato. They were biting Kato’s neck and torso and legs and biting my lower extremities and jumping up on my upper torso.

I began punching and kicking at the dogs trying to get them to leave us alone, but they continued. They would not stop. At one point, Kato had to let go of the suspect to fight off a dog that was on his throat, and afterwards Kato re-engaged the suspect again on his left leg. During this time, I observed the male suspect continually reaching down into his front waistband pocket area, and this was concerning to me as who from my police experience is their weapons are kept. I did not know if he had any weapons. I kept telling him to show me his hands. He would stop briefly but continue to reach down.

The dogs were still attacking us, and at this point, I did not have control of the suspect adequately, and Kato and I were both being injured, so I chose to retreat at that point. I pulled Kato back out of the yard, and the gate slammed shut. I told the suspect to come out, and he simply did not. I could hear one or two other voices at that point that he was talking with. I could not hear what they were saying though.

The male suspect yelled at me. [10] [ 17 ] When Constable Panamaroff was asked what the words “sic him” meant he replied: From my past experience with dogs growing up on a farm, the term “sic him” was used when I had my dog chase birds, so “sic him” would mean to go after something and bite them, connotation of a dog biting. [11] [ 18 ] After Constable Panamaroff and Kato retreated from the yard and closed the gate, other police units arrived to assist.

Constable Seibel was one of the officers who arrived at the scene and we have already noted what his observations were. [ 19 ] With respect to injuries sustained, Constable Panamaroff testified that his injuries, for the most part, were minor. Due to his vest and high boots, he “received compression and bruising injuries only to my lower extremities.” [12]

[ 20 ] Kato, unfortunately, fared a lot worse: Kato received multiple dog bites to his neck and torsal area. The main injuries that were most problematic were the bites and incisions on the inside of his thighs both rear right and left. They were bleeding, and he had a limp as we left the area. [13] Kato was off duty for two weeks. [ 21 ] Constable Panamaroff’s examination was concluded with this exchange: Q Okay. I’ll play the devil’s advocate here for a second. In this situation, could you have just let Mr.

Regnier go into that yard, or why was it necessary to do what you did in this situation to apprehend him with the police dog? A They already led police on a high-speed pursuit causing an injury with accident – or an accident with injuries, excuse me. I tracked up to them. I issued two warnings, opportunity for him to get compliant. Still he continued to flee, to evade police. At this point, I don’t think he would stop.

If I wanted to use the least amounts of force necessary at that point, I was using the dog to apprehend him and hold him until I got there. [14] [ 22 ] Constable Panamaroff was certain that the accused wanted his dogs to attack him and Kato when he yelled out “sic him and bite him”, and that, moreover, he took no steps to call the dogs off when they attacked him and Kato. [ 23 ] During cross-examination, Constable Panamaroff was certain that he was about 40 feet from the accused and his companions when he announced his police challenge for them to stop.

He also testified that the two people he successfully tracked and confronted were the people he first observed leaving the accident scene. In his opinion, Kato did not display any mannerisms that would suggest that another or new scent was introduced into the original human scent he was tracking. [ 24 ] As far as the injuries are concerned, it was Constable Panamaroff’s testimony that most of the bites to Kato and himself occurred before Constable Seidel and the other officers arrived. [ 25 ] Defence called the accused to testify. He testified that on August 1, 2015, he started working on his car in his garage.

This continued into the early morning hours of August 2, 2015. Some of his friends were also in the garage sitting around and listening to music. He became aware of police presence in the neighbourhood: “police driving around; aircraft flying.” According to him, he was just minding his own business: I was just working on the car - - me and Lane were outside. I went outside, came back to garage. Could hear some noise outside. A guy was trying to climb the fence into my yard. A kid was trying to get into my yard. I told him to get lost. He left.

There was a knock on the door, it was Lane who wanted to get back into the garage. Instead of opening the big garage door, I went to open the side gate to let her in the yard. A guy came from across the street yelling at us to stop. We panicked and decided to run into the yard. That’s when a dog attacked me from behind. Was biting me. I was screaming and yelling to get this dog off me. The police officer was just standing looking at me. Didn’t do anything just saying “don’t fight him”. [ 26 ] According to the accused, the dogs were in the garage when he left to go outside. He does not know who let them out.

The first he saw of the dogs was when he was on the ground and the dogs were trying to help him. He denied that he gave any command for the dogs to attack the officer or his dog. It would have been natural for them to behave in a protective manner when they saw their owner in distress.

[ 27 ] The accused further testified that he had nothing to do with the stolen vehicle, the pursuit or the consequent crash. [ 28 ] He has lived in the neighbourhood for seventeen years without incident, although he acknowledged that he had fines for dog tickets in the past and that one of his dogs - the pit bull - was declared a dangerous dog and had to be inside or muzzled when outside. [ 29 ] On the day in question, the accused did not know who the man with the dog was; when the dog attacked him his dogs, which were somehow let out of the garage came to his defence without any prompting from him.

When it was all over, the accused suffered several bites to his legs and required medical attention. In short, he was the victim: “what did I do to deserve this?” Position of Parties [ 30 ] With respect to count #1 of the Information, defence took the position that the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was not placed in the vehicle by an witness and the individuals from that vehicle who were arrested did not point to the accused as being one of the occupants. [ 31 ] So far as count #2 is concerned, defence argued that police conduct in this case was unreasonable.

The use of the dog, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances, amounted to excessive force: the police officer was not in danger; the man running away was not armed; and the police could have arrested the accused without resorting to force. [ 32 ] Moreover, the accused denied letting the dogs out and commanding them to attack the police officer or his service dog. The accused’s dogs acted naturally. Credibility is certainly an issue. [ 33 ] Crown argued that all of the persons in the stolen vehicle would have known that it was stolen.

The accused was being tracked by Constable Panamaroff and his service dog Kato from the accident scene to where he was apprehended. The Crown did concede that there was no evidence of the identity of the persons in the stolen vehicle. [ 34 ] With respect to count #2, the Crown submits that the police officer was in lawful execution of his duty. He caught up to whom he believed were suspects from the stolen vehicle involved in a crash; he issues a police challenge and two warnings that he would release the dog if the accused continued running.

Further, the use of the police dog was not using excessive force as police dogs are trained to simply hold a person who is compliant. In this case, the accused received injuries because he continued to struggle and try to escape. He ordered his dogs to attack. Whether the order was to attack Kato or Constable Panamaroff is immaterial as the doctrine of transferred intent applies. [ 35 ] The dogs were the weapon. The accused was not a credible witness. All elements of count #2 are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis [ 36 ] I will address firstly count #1 in the Information; namely, possession of stolen property, contrary to s. 355 (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 37 ] The accused is not seen exiting the stolen vehicle; no one identifies him as being one of the occupants of the stolen vehicle (Sergeant Bueckert only recognized the driver, but not any of the other occupants); and the only evidence presented is that he is the person who was tracked from the accident scene to the vicinity of his residence. Without more, the evidence is simply insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, I find Mr. Regnier not guilty of the charge of count #1.

[ 38 ] With respect to count #2, a number of issues emerge: 1) Was the police officer in the lawful execution of his duty?; 2) Was the force employed in executing the arrest of the accused excessive?; 3) Can an animal, in this case, dogs, be considered a weapon employed in the assault?; and 4) Credibility of the witness. [ 39 ] At the outset, I find that Constable Panamaroff was a peace officer in the lawful execution of his duty. A dispatch alerted him to a dangerous pursuit of a stolen motor vehicle which in due course became involved in a serious accident.

He and his service dog Kato arrived at the scene with the intended purpose of assisting in the apprehension of the suspects from the stolen vehicle. He noticed a pair of individuals departing the scene and decided to track them. There is nothing improper or unlawful about his actions. [ 40 ] Once he came upon the accused and his companion he identified himself and ordered them to stop. He warned them on a couple of occasions that if they ran he would release his dog. The female companion stopped while the accused kept running. The dog was released and quickly brought the accused down.

In the process the accused was bitten several times and required medical attention. [ 41 ] The evidence from Constable Panamaroff, who was qualified as an expert dog handler, was that the use of a dog falls in the intermediate range of force. Further, the dog is trained to catch and hold a person who is compliant. Conversely, if a person struggles or attempts to escape the dog will continue to bite. [ 42 ] In this case, the police officer genuinely believed that the accused was one of the suspects who ran from the stolen vehicle.

He testified that he was certain that the scent was not compromised and that Kato behaved throughout the track in a manner that would suggest that he was not distracted by any outside or secondary scent. [ 43 ] Secondly, the police officer would not have known the identity of the accused or that he lived in a house nearby. The accused refused to stop after two challenges were yelled out, and there was a good chance that he would escape. Releasing the dog would greatly increase the likelihood of apprehending the suspect.

The dog, in the police officer’s opinion, was the least excessive amount of force that could be utilised in that situation and under those circumstances. [ 44 ] I find that the police officer acted in a prudent and responsible manner having regard to the overall environment he was in. [ 45 ] The accused testified that he did not hear the police officer’s challenges or the warning that he would release the dog if he kept running. He also testified that he did not release the dogs and, moreover, that he never ordered them to attack - either Constable Panamaroff or his dog Kato.

He testified that he never used the words “sic him and bite him”. [ 46 ] Constable Panamaroff testified that he yelled out the police challenge and warning at the accused and his companion. They were fairly close to him when he did so - perhaps 40 to 60 feet. The female stopped, while the accused kept running. [ 47 ] Constable Panamaroff was certain that he heard the words “sic him, bite him”, and that those words came from the accused. Credibility is clearly in issue.

[48] Where is conflict, or contradictory evidence, particularly between an accused who gives exculpatory evidence and one ormore witnesses who contradict and call into question the accused’s credibility, the direction given by the Supreme Court in R v WD, (SCC), [1991], 1 SCR 742, is instructive. [49] The test is as follows: Firstly, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. Secondly, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Thirdly, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidencewhich you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. [50] A denial does not create a reasonable doubt anymore than a complaint establishes proof of an offence having been committed.

The totality of the evidence has to be considered. [51] Where is dispute between the testimony of the accused and Constable Panamaroff - particularly the time frame from whichConstable Panamaroff came upon the accused and his companion to the time that the dogs attacked - I prefer the testimony of the latter. I believe Constable Panamaroff that he identified himself as a police officer and that he made it clear to the accused that if he did not stophe would release his service dog. Clearly the accused’s female companion heard Constable Panamaroff and stopped. The accused keptrunning.

There was no evidence adduced that he has any hearing impairment. I certainly did not notice any problem with his hearingwhen he testified in court. The distance between the parties was not great. Constable Panamaroff was not speaking softly - he wasyelling. [52] Perhaps the accused, realising he was so close to his yard, decided to make a run for it. At any rate, he was unable to out runKato. Once the police service dog engaged the accused, he did his best to escape and take refuge in his yard which was enclosed by afull fence. When he opened the side gate his dogs happened to be there.

Whether they were there all along, or whether someone justhappened to let them out of the garage as the accused surmised, is not relevant. The question is whether the accused, seeing his dogs,ordered them to attack. [53] The accused testified that the dogs acted on their own to protect him. Constable Panamaroff testified that he distinctly heardthe words “sic him, bite him”. [54] Having regard to the predicament that the accused was in, with the police dog all over him, it is understandable that he wouldwant to rely on the assistance of his dogs.

It is even possible that the accused does not clearly recall giving the order, or does notremember the exact words he used, but I accept Constable Panamaroff’s testimony that the dogs were commanded to attack. [55] On balance, therefore, I find that the accused ordered his dogs to attack. [56] One final issue to consider is whether the dogs are a weapon. [57]

Section 270.01(1) of the Criminal Code states: Assaulting peace officer with weapon or causing bodily harm

270.01

(1) Everyone commits an offence who, in committing an assault referred to in

section 270, (

a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of one; . . . [58]

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines weapons: . . . any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use (

a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (

b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person . . . [59] The definition is very broad in scope and certainly seems to contemplate inanimate as well as animate objects. Various levelsof court have held that a dog can be used as a weapon. [60] The Supreme Court in R v Lamy, 2002 SCC 25, at paras 12 - 16, addresses the definition of weapon in s. 2 of the CriminalCode.

It held that an object can be used as a weapon by an accused when it is “used . . . in causing . . . injury to the victim. “Injury” isdifferent from “bodily harm”. [61] Injury can be physical or psychological and it need not amount to bodily harm. The proper application of criminal causationrules apply in order to determine whether the object was sufficiently linked to the injuries to allow the conclusion that the object used inthe assault was a weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

Further, “the accused must have knowingly or recklessly used theobject without the consent of the victim in circumstances where injury was reasonable foreseeable” (para 16). [62] More to the point, dog as a weapon, was considered in the following cases. [63] R v McLeod, (1993), (YK CA), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (YKCA), the case dealt with a charge under s. 267(1)(a)of the Criminal Code, assault with a weapon; the accused ordered their dog to ‘sick’ the complainant. The complainant suffered injuriescaused by the dog.

The Court held that the use of the word “anything” in s. 2 definition of a weapon includes inanimate as well asanimate objects. Its scope is very broad. A dog can be used, or intended to used, as a weapon. The animate thing used in this case was adog, which would be effective it if followed commands. The accused intended the result which followed her command to the dog. [64] The Court’s decision in R v B(T), 2006 ONCJ 391, aff’d 2008 ONCA 80, agrees with the reasons for decision in McLeod.

InR v B(T), the accused took a pit bull to a party, there were arguments, the dog got off the leash and injured some of the partiers. Theissue was whether the accused “had appropriate control or decision making capacity over the dog: and “whether the dog was responsiveto commands” (para 135). [65] It was found that the dog was a weapon in this case. The dog listened to commands, would attack when ordered, and theaccused had a very close relationship with the dog.

The accused commanded the dog to “get him” (para 137). [66] Based on the above, and the evidence which I accept, I find that the accused’s dogs were a weapon.

[ 67 ] I find that the Crown has proven all essential elements of the offence charged in count #2 of the Information beyond a reasonable doubt and I find the accused guilty. _____________________________ M.M. Baniak, J [1] P 3, transcript [2] P 7, transcript [3] P 7, transcript [4] P 9, transcript [5] P 20, transcript [6] P22, transcript [7] P 38, transcript [8] P 40, transcript [9] P 40, transcript [10] P 42, 43, 44, transcript [11] P 46, transcript [12] P 48, transcript [13] P 49, transcript [14] P 63, transcript