McPhearson v. Anderson et al, No. 2:2012cv00244 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the court GRANTS in part defendant A. L. Anderson's Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Counts 1, 2, and 3 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his official capacity, and Count 2 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. Unless plaintiff submits an amended complaint sufficiently pleading "severe emotional distress" within 10 days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court will dismiss Count 3 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. The court DENIES defendant A. L. Anderson's Motion to Dismiss in regard to Count 1 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 7/5/2012. (rsim, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RLED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 5 2012 Norfolk Division ANTONIO DEMOND MCPHEARSON, ACTION NO. A. L. ANDERSON, M. D. 2:12cv244 and ANDERSEN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND This Motion matter to comes Dismiss Dismiss"), filed on June originally of of City filed M. D. See suit Compl. 1 to Ill this 1446. May 1, 2012.1 his A. Plaintiff, in March 26, L. Anderson's ("Motion Antonio the on Anderson A. L. 12(b)(6) Complaint Virginia, defendant 2-3. court Defendant 2012. Defendant Support of Codefendant an Codefendant on A. Plaintiff A. his L. M. separate D. April L. to 30, M. D. 2012, Anderson has Anderson Motion 2 The two defendants in Rule on Circuit 2012. to Demond Court Plaintiff and codefendant Andersen2 in both their individual and official capacities. action § court to 5, filed Norfolk, against the Pursuant McPhearson, the before ORDER not also Dismiss Andersen pursuant consented responded filed an ("Brief to removed to to 28 U.S.C. removal on Motion to the accompanying in the Brief in Support"). in this case have confusingly similar names. Andersen's Motion Memorandum Opinion to and Dismiss Order. will be addressed Dismiss, is ripe and for the deadline suit identification or about assaulted related 1i 4. FACTUAL AND arises and November 24, by to her the defendant A. the for L. Barbara to assailant, Plaintiff was Andersen, the was passenger and Circuit a matter L. Anderson Demond subsequently he ran stopped a car plaintiff's warrant. See id. «n result Court of of these the City in 16-18. the Norfolk, of favor. filed Virginia, 6. the alleges in Ill to 7-9. M. plaintiff Plaintiff "5! information Id. which and Id. information which plaintiff Id. alleged codefendant information, events, of the plaintiff selected by not Virginia. McPhearson. ]" arrested is description typing and who officer. and on allegedly Department, McPherson, "began system was Police name Roshawn that Carter, responding the asserts Norfolk, Barbara the inaccurate McPherson, the charges were eventually dismissed in his As this of Carter Norfolk provided computer after Donaesha plaintiff, case Plaintiff in [Antonio Plaintiff arrest. plaintiff, Antonio A. department's outstanding passed; unfortunate Roshawn called Carter an Antonio Anderson defendant of father, mother, that has PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2009, instant victim's alleged out mistaken According After response review. I. This for D. was matched alleges Id. an that II 29. suit which a in the suit was subsequently removed to this court.3 causes of official of 42 of action and false individual U.S.C. claim against § 1983; of 15 31-53. Defendant the Procedure 2 3 A. L. Anderson, 1 of a now to prejudice, law claim common law distress. moves to his violations Virginia this Federal and both common emotional Anderson in alleges a Virginia alleges pursuant with L. Count alleges infliction Complaint 12(b)(6), A. capacities: and Count intentional dismiss defendant Count imprisonment; The Complaint asserts three court Rule award Id. of him to Civil judgment. Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss. II. Federal part, "[a] ... a is detailed and of 550 dismiss, a accepted as its that entitled Twombly, on Civil and plain factual elements of pleading short pleader labels Rule to ANALYSIS Procedure states a statement [A] a U.S. face.'" 3 See supra at 1. the 544, 555 (2007). 'state Ashcroft not contain a v. have more than U.S. of the Corp. v. motion a to factual that 662, the not Atl. survive relief 556 that need Bell sufficient claim to Iqbal, showing contain recitation do." "To must "requires formulaic will to claim 8 in pertinent relief complaint Rule action must provides, for The of complaint true, of but conclusions[.] cause claim relief." allegations, 8 (a) is matter, plausible 678 (2009) (quoting that to a Twombly, "plaintiff draw for 550 the the U.S. pleads reasonable misconduct is, It facts demonstrating U.S. at 570). factual therefore, with a that ^Id^ not Facial content inference alleged." 556) . consist[ency]" at "sheer unlawful that the (citing enough plausibility allows defendant Twombly, for a 550 possibility" conduct. Id. the is plaintiff court liable U.S. to or (citing means at allege "mere[] Twombly, 550 557). The Supreme Court, in Twombly and Iqbal, offered guidance to courts evaluating a motion to dismiss: In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give Iqbal, 556 alleged light 417 in F.3d . . be to an U.S. the most whether . rise at a 420 complaint a 679. complaint favorable 418, entitlement to That as the (4th to relief. true is, the and views plaintiff. Cir. states context-specific a 2005). plausible task that court accepts those facts Venkatraman Overall, claim v. facts in REI the Sys., " [d] etermining for requires relief the will reviewing court to Iqbal, 556 A. draw on its U.S. at 679. Violations of 42 Plaintiff judicial alleges relation to deprived him rights. Compl. deprived b) the of his of right law; and Defendant his f the not c) A. Fourth, to be to right Anderson claim against rise to a claim under 1. arrest or No. Oct. enforcement seizure of of U.S.C. free argues that the § court facts so 1983." false Mot. he was seizures; due process arrest." should alleged that in Amendment argues without from violation, Anderson unreasonable liberty the 1983 L. A. plaintiff from § Fourteenth be because U.S.C. under 2011 2011). officers unreasonable." 42 and free 1983 imprisonment I:llcv97, an be U.S.C. 42 seizures 28, sense." do Count Dismiss Id. dismiss "not 1 5 give fails to 9. Capacity under false unreasonable Va. 42 Individual "Actions Milan, him common defendant Fifth, to constitutional state that deprived this a of Specifically, right the L. arguing 32. and 1983 violations arrest, of "a) U.S.C § experience "The from individual Brooks v. are the U.S. Dist. of claims 125334, of false analyzed Amendment." LEXIS Fourth effected upon properly Fourth making City based at as Day *11 v. (E.D. Amendment prohibits law unreasonable seizures, and without probable Winston-Salem, 85 cause F.3d is 178, 183 (4th Cir. seized him probable his 1996). 'pursuant cause favor and are that Prince George's was 85 liable statements arrest. police (quoting the the truth objectively Burke v. not ... 621, terminated claim 630 police supported by alleging Fourth Amendment.'" claims against {4th Cir. an at of *15 a such may at can or 630 405 08-3351, 22, officer the Cir. or 2011) can of false underlying 2007) {"[A] reckless from liability other F.3d officer acted all the serious had with doubts information a probable evidence, obvious be as to he high degree falsity, the reasons established affiant the to reported. truth doubt by 66, officers.") 86 (1st of evidence awareness that is, must have of the his be with himself conduct Walpole, No. Aug. cause (4th insulate officers intentionally intentionally reasonable disregard Minn. statements not of Fraser, non-arresting F.3d acts v. (D. reckless if Town statement's] a 2007) 2005)). Reckless in Miller v. non-arresting Galarnyk 475 who that 183-84). However, Miller, was proceedings a F.3d 93794, omissions for the 475 results defendant disregard through LEXIS the See of generally cases). or state allegations that criminal to F.3d at See Dist. for the seizure fail. {collecting that Cnty., Unreasonable U.S. process violative (quoting Brooks, 2011 legal to plaintiff's sufficient seizure generally "A when that of [a viewing entertained statements accuracy of or the Cir. Id. at 627 (internal be material, cause." "[n]ot that Id. at every F.2d may 363, provide F.3d at A. mistake' a U.S. plaintiff to a social Anderson incorrectly computer arrest of a Of violation police course, for William which Cnty., officer a 753 'allegations of will not Miller, violation." 475 (quoting defendant Roshawn his and car, Franks with v. date of the potential See his leading pursuant physical as alleges a ff 7-8. defendant Antonio in codefendant to well residences, Compl. information to alleged birth, two plaintiff's, "typing Anderson McPherson, plaintiff selected plaintiff L. record. criminal system," A. provided number, when the of probable warrant plaintiff's was information, information department's Andersen's this arrest Prince that he of his finding "must (1978)). security of statements omitted). original) Antonio description McPhearson, 171 description to in where name, v. constitutional alleges call . an by 154, response L. "A 438 general of 1985). for . constitutional (emphasis description, In a Cir. innocent assailant's some issuance 627-28 responded and in . Such quotations (4th or Here, a (internal Thompson basis Delaware, as 628 the sought." 364 a omitted). necessary to constitutes be negligence is, mix-up automatically remedy quotations warrant Demond to M. the D. naming plaintiff. was "for S_ee a entirely crime warrant (alleging "[t]he oppressive 4 plaintiff conduct A. cause." of argues in it 39. "was However, that id. warrant matched plaintiff alleges willful, 37. his ff the the was 11 that arrest See Finally, Id. the allegations after defendants Anderson 33, name. arrested that later flfl his his reckless." L. and Id^ in in was alleges commit," information).5 and/or Defendant not issued identification that Plaintiff acknowledges was that did probable tacitly itself 11 18.4 he without plaintiff his id_;_ In 22 malicious, turn, Motion 18, to defendant Dismiss and accompanying Brief in Support that plaintiff has failed to allege a causal link between defendant A. L. Anderson's actions and the resulting warrant and arrest. See Mot. Dismiss n 8-9; Br. Supp. 3-4. Although the court reads the Complaint as alleging causation, see Compl. 1 33, the court may also consider the warrant itself. See Carter v. Baltimore Cnty., 39 Fed. App'x 930, 933 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) ("A district court may consider public records in deciding a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.") (quoting Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 644 (6th Cir. 2001)). The face of the warrant clearly names plaintiff, "Antonio Demond Mcphearson," as the accused, and was issued on the basis of the sworn statements of "Anderson, A L NPD." See Warrant, ECF there a A. is L. Seemingly in M. Plaintiff was Virginia." simply he Norfolk. at at D. the this not person SI Regardless, alleged the plaintiff on court issuance the the has 8 . the later . . warrant the is sought examined See out likely rest alleges indicated warrant it assailant face. the that defendant and litigation. However, with satisfied between of Complaint by is causation "falsely court its the of the sought 41. consistent the Thus, stage of Andersen Compl. restating, clearly names and contradiction, See was 2. allegation actions arrest codefendant that 3-1, Anderson's subsequent 5 No. sufficient of Norfolk, is Complaint, the crime warrant, supra note that plaintiff his for the of that 4. in which A. L. Anderson negligence," argues that which plaintiff has does not constitutional violation. Consideration presents the of Mot. the court pleadings in totality, defendant A. L. "innocent mistake" Moreover, claim sound (discussing person a would disregard failure the true. Iqbal, November 24, voluminous Antonio the to of court must 556 Motion 2009, information Roshawn as defendant A. Support, plaintiff SI alleged 10. care at A. yet a than of ensure Anderson a court stage the can in the as purpose of that presented sworn 34 facts accepts alleged provided correct alleged was the the the court than SI that for his Compl. this Thus, an of negligence while at that names.6 portions See the make identical certain the allegation skeptical more plaintiff's L. of Examining quite conclusions and on with assailant, statement on L. Anderson wryly notes in his Brief in himself assailant to 679. 1983 task. However, at level § disregard. identifying McPherson, this nearly Dismiss, defendant 6 Indeed, the to of anything accept U.S. the allegation "due alleged "simple 9. Complaint, an legal 11 is two arrested"). litigation, considering did reckless plaintiff's See court confusing or be Dismiss the akin to difficult plaintiff's more intentionality a Anderson parsing rise sufficiency with at most one confused point in his his own name with Complaint. that See of Compl. which 11 the 7-8; warrant Warrant, Further, and/or if prosecution cause that the has "this defendant Supp. 5, plead that a but reckless statements at 627. such The Anderson the issuance must 1983 court that of DENY claim finds the he is was defendant the that against bad him plaintiff the and L. in or could this Anderson's time. 10 with or full probable that support that intent," need Miller, have only or material Br. with false 475 F.3d a plausible juncture, defendant plaintiff's alleged 45 protests evil See 1 "procured "deliberately information assailant, plaintiff's his and making could, id. plaintiff arrest. at . plausibly in "willful" Anderson Anderson acted Compl. facts reasonable needed; assume not was See . motive truth" selected A. . that Anderson warrant L. L. not must A. any A. plaintiff's willfully knowledge court § as without any L. for to court A. the A. disregard if, full with action Plaintiff's falsely facts motive defendant claim L. alleged acted leading was See 4. conclusions. Defendant not 37. issued. note such defendant Plaintiff whatsoever"). plaintiff 1 was supra that legal that charge arrest 2; Compl. these of at alleges See affirmatively knowledge 3-1, plaintiff support {alleging plaintiff's ECF No. "reckless." true, the for individual leading arrest. Motion to with Thus, Dismiss capacity at to the the this 2. Official A claim capacity See is Hafer 2; actions A. L. L. be against to a allegation in A. under Anderson Rule a in of the Monell of claim claims are unless Pep't action nature official § of of a treated as defendant 1983 Servs., void of claim is cannot pursuant Soc. possible capacity Procedure of Compl. caused Norfolk, to L. against "A municipality City link A. City See against is plaintiff's his a Complaint the the capacity some v. employer. Virginia. 1983 of for question. capacity. Section causal Common Law False committed official official Defendant plaintiff's state policy Civil Plaintiff's to Plaintiff's Thus, Federal his official tort." of L. B. his policy violation. in in his public officer incident failed (1978). single the the in (1991). police Therefore, municipal 691 25 has constitutional 658, 21, a official against City of Norfolk, liable official U.S. during public action as 2. a the Anderson held 502 Anderson Plaintiff A. an employed Supp. defendant as Melo, Virginia, Br. against treated was Norfolk, 1 brought v. Anderson Capacity any let a 436 to [the] U.S. reference alone any constitutional against DISMISSED defendant pursuant to 12(b)(6). Imprisonment next Virginia claim is common that law 11 defendant tort of A. false L. Anderson imprisonment. Compl. 1 39. restraint, probable In seizure cause constituted 1. A. relief restraint of be one law falls granted. person False of the legal 149 906, 921 (1928). "The person without of the execution of lawful 71, 75 cause (1925). "does imprisonment" McKay Chevrolet Motley v. Va. 1968)). warrant, in Va. an process." give when it action is a & false a and Va. Co., a without 12 v. of is or its face." 265, 287 person F. the the action 266 illegal unlawful 14 3 790, cause," 287 an is F. Va. probable for (1989) Supp. Motley, Owens, Coughlan procuring probable another v. procured without upon direct Roberts, of imprisonment. 792. Co. cause Cir. "the Co. action against claim is Grant process, and on even and the warrant Mfg. Therefore, of a liberty W.T. lawful to claim stating physical gist "regular 18 Hardware for without whatsoever imprisonment Kress rise Inc., "maliciously of justification." Importantly, not excuse imprisonment short adequate detention entirely the Id. false without Va. legal was "[t]hat Capacity Anderson can alleges Plaintiff sufficient common L. by arrest any Individual defendant plaintiff imprisonment." Plaintiff's which and or false support, false v. Jim (quoting 792 (W.D. erroneous not liable Supp. at Here, plaintiff imprisoned him, based demonstrate that outstanding warrant accompanying the warrant 8; was alleged lack 39. Civil the Procedure 2. against indeed, the of altogether sovereign 230, 240 certainly police allegations defendant did Norfolk from force. L. and supra plaintiff See even false that 7- Anderson's arrest. pursuant are if and an Compl. true, are imprisonment Federal to in of any of v. of 13 regarding City of a to Rule the the the is be of role of immune doctrine Alexandria, function 264 of Va. complaint providing held a capacity; city citizen's cannot support official under City governmental the his Further, action Niese Accordingly, in facts claim. investigation the insufficient Anderson assert sort See ("The L. this this of A. not in immunity. part DISMISSED of 5 note allegation A. of an Capacity these (2002) is defendant theory true, to discussion allegations, a supra no see the if 12(b)(6). plaintiff City under claim face, falsely pursuant contains for even See identification cause Anderson which, name. on plaintiff's Official Likewise, claim probable L. arrested its focuses actionable and on erroneous Thus, not Virginia, of was Complaint regular plaintiff A. allegations plaintiff's The willfully simply in not alleged 33, on defendant plaintiff text. instead, n alleges liable is a for the alleged intentional officer.]"). false Federal against capacity, Rule of and Civil infliction of Anderson. upon and that conduct distress resulted. responds that by plaintiff's 1. A distress, four factual of "the it against and offends morality;" "the conduct "a state L. a police claim Anderson DISMISSED for in his pursuant to distress was are A. the L. Anderson distress likely and conclusory Supp. unwarranted result;" that Defendant Br. A. L. "baseless, outrageous;" 47-51. intentional emotional inflicted on of defendant defendant arrest 1?[ claim against that and law A. and that emotional L. Anderson not supported of emotional 4-5. Capacity unaccompanied reckless;" common allegations. action elements: a allegations Individual cause his Compl. these is [a 12(b) (6). intentionally extreme to A. distress "emotional "was claim alleges through failed by Infliction of Emotional Distress emotional Plaintiff" charges;" of the brings Plaintiff "deliberately has Procedure plaintiff committed defendant Common Law Intentional Finally, the plaintiff imprisonment official C. Thus, torts the for by intentional infliction physical injury, requires wrongdoer's conduct was was outrageous generally causal accepted connection 14 and a intentional intolerable standards between showing the of in or that decency wrongdoer's conduct and the emotional distress;" emotional distress was 338, 342 (1974). "[S]uch torts Ruth v. 237 366, been found Fletcher, only character, possible so of 241 23, Here, that plausibly defendant must A. See plaintiff erroneous 9-10. to be favored in "the 215 the Va. law." "[L]iability been as so regarded has outrageous to go as community." of beyond Russo v. in all atrocious, this stage factual U.S. at L. Anderson the warrant Therefore, and do in 679. was the information, correct not the elements and White, assailant has 15 that claim a cause the court had full assailant to the arrest. alleged as assumes of again true. that information knowledge when issuance See action court the host legal of Complaint a of Although the with facts plaintiff's support and alleged plaintiff a in provided plaintiff's of such, As leading alleges distress. litigation allegations alleged not three barely, emotional and at albeit first is was plaintiff's the conclusory 556 identifying and Anderson all A. has that Eldridge, (1989). degree, sufficiently, out L. own, Igbal, defendant set are accept in v. not 373 civilized infliction allegations their a are last, (1991). plaintiff intentional on in Womack conduct decency, intolerable 27 the extreme utterly Va. Va. where and bounds severe." and selecting of discussion sufficient that the supra factual support, at Anderson acted to this point, arrested, distress was 48-4 9. specific under and the "knew likely Although the allegations, some to innocent person, in a to However, for pled to expected allegation, has been and has of substantial substantial wholly 33, finds of that to into his community; his profession; sums frivolous of has from has his money charge; has 16 being 215 supra to Va. SI that 53. note 342. also 4. has not a claim Virginia emotional stress reasonable Incorporated he credit and been been been among hindered required business to reputation disrepute defend caused and in to to much the the spend expend against an has under no of at state distress such false "utterly plaintiff "the least a of plaintiff 51; that public his away is of distress" Compl. claims injured 40, at detention Womack, emotional generally that, and level that emotional brought time arrest Compl. plaintiff's procurement the Slfl endure." greatly of practice to finds L. emotional See of A. plaintiff that skeptical knowing to causing conduct. further Defendants plaintiff been members by the defendant known outrageousness, court Plaintiff of community." and alleges have remains a rise infliction caused should erroneous "severe Plaintiff his in See Compl. the law. be an intent intentional could recklessly court civilized alleged causation. sufficiently or court could addition that result" circumstances, leading In allegation or the warrant, intolerable his intentionally be S13I for this anxiety man into and mental anguish; public scorn, Id. ridicule, has been made the object of and humiliation. SI 46.7 Nonetheless, of and his emotional 3:10cv52, Aug. distress 2011 22, U.S. 2011). emotional Kreutzer, is 271 Va. because anguish . . self-esteem and of the Russo, 241 and Va. at . "extreme this stage. See short of v. dismissal trauma sleeping, nature. Harris (affirming and extreme mental loss of psychological mortification, humiliation, reputation" (affirming of Va. additional . to that fall psychological . (W.D. distress (2006) requiring symptoms Michalski, *40 claims of difficulty injury 28 to initial "severe at v. demonstrates bar 204-05 depression, disgrace, law concrete Jackson 93361, allegations at alleged detail." LEXIS counseling shame, any strong nightmares, and "not case 188, allegations treatment a dismissed . in Virginia generalized claims has Dist. distress" Plaintiff's other plaintiff dismissal were insufficient); because allegations 7 Plaintiff also asserted in his § 1983 claim that he suffered not general limited injuries, damage mental Compl. and SI special of damages liberty, humiliation, standing pain fees, personal 36. and and With harm is for and anguish, bondsmen business the which in pain but and embarrassment, the community, emotional [and] fees, distress, away time from affairs. exception identical including, physical reputation to injuries," asserted and loss inconvenience, attorneys' his to: of unspecified no supporting to that 17 facts "physical are discussed above. alleged, pain the that and plaintiff its "was 'physical unable to Russo, "[t]here any nervous, symptoms,' concentrate is objective confined home written the Russo, fails severity cannot plaintiff's against of "severe L. In by the an as [plaintiff] in had stress, that [plaintiff] was that [plaintiff] lost law. the facts actual will his amended Complaint to Because the court distress" was that detailed in and Here, the short, Complaint Anderson emotional that or Virginia the submits Official These against 8 under activities, stress court severity dismiss complaint ten support the individual within as of Count 3 capacity, sufficiently (10) days of the this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 2. again, caused 28. distress, A. plaintiff pleading date alleged example, attention, at experienced insufficient) . sufficiently from from hospital, Va. element defendant unless a plead determine for injury in 241 to were claim, medical or sleep, withdrew work" physical sought income."8 at no [plaintiff] at could not allegations defendant plaintiff Defendant does the alleged all occurred, arrest," Capacity not loss as as A. L. did are Anderson not assert describe of his result suffered. ~~See Compl. in his any financial job, plaintiff a insufficient n 24-28. any 18 support official facts harm attorney himself of to a claim capacity. regarding the Once role in his Complaint, fees, and bondsman states, severe "as a result emotional of but costs of distress the he the City of is immune city 264 Va. failed A. is at to L. Norfolk this altogether 240; a claim Anderson in this supra for moreover, sort at false his pursuant claim; from discussion state DISMISSED in Thus, imprisonment Rule See and of the Niese, plaintiff against capacity, Federal again, action. 13-14. official to of once has defendant the Civil claim Procedure 12(b) (6) . III. For the defendant Counts in an A. 1, official his foregoing L. 2, and Opinion and and A. L. defendant ten Count 1 A. against The Memorandum Opinion IT Norfolk, IS SO (10) the L. 2 Further, of court in his and Order A. unless the date counsel to and A. L. this Count Dismiss in forward for all a submits Memorandum 3 against The in his his emotional capacity. to in Anderson "severe of part DISMISSES plaintiff dismiss Anderson Clerk in Anderson defendant Motion L. the to L. individual Anderson's DIRECTS A. pleading will GRANTS Dismiss, against days defendant court to sufficiently Anderson DENIES capacity. Count court defendant capacity. Order, the Motion against complaint within defendant U y 3 individual distress" reasons, Anderson's capacity, amended CONCLUSION court regard to individual copy of this parties. ORDERED. /S/ Rebecca Beach Smith Virginia 19 United States District Judge
]]>
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.
