HOTEL GUEST CALLS 911 FOR HELP — BUT THE POLICE RESPONSE ENDS WITH AN ARREST

A hotel room is supposed to be a temporary place to sleep, relax, or travel. But when something goes wrong inside that room, the situation can change quickly. A guest may feel threatened, call 911, and expect officers to arrive as protectors. Yet once police arrive, they do not simply accept the caller's version of events. They investigate what happened, speak with everyone involved, look for evidence, and determine whether an offense may have occurred.

That is the central idea behind the thumbnail shown here, which carries the dramatic headline:

“HOTEL GUEST CALLS 911 FOR HELP BUT ENDS UP GETTING ARRESTED INSTEAD.”

The image shows a woman near a hotel room, an officer apparently taking her into custody, and a room number marked “213.”

However, searches for the exact thumbnail and its specific incident did not produce a sufficiently reliable official police report, court record, or mainstream news report that confirms the woman's identity, the hotel, the exact date, the reason she called 911, or the final legal outcome.

That means those details should not be invented.

Instead, this article examines the broader and very real situation represented by the thumbnail: A HOTEL GUEST CALLS POLICE EXPECTING HELP, BUT THE INVESTIGATION LEADS OFFICERS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CALLER.

This kind of scenario raises important questions about 911 CALLS, HOTEL GUEST RIGHTS, POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, TRESPASS, ARRESTS, and the difference between being the person who requests police assistance and being legally considered the victim.

CALLING 911 DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE SOMEONE THE VICTIM

One of the most important things to understand about emergency calls is that a caller is not automatically determined to be the victim simply because they made the call.

The purpose of 911 is to connect people experiencing emergencies with appropriate emergency services.

The National 911 Program explains that 911 should be used for situations requiring immediate assistance from police, firefighters, or emergency medical services. Dispatchers ask questions about the location, the nature of the emergency, and relevant details so responders can be sent appropriately.

When officers arrive, their job is not necessarily to accept the caller's story without question.

They may need to determine:

• What happened?
• Who was involved?
• Is anyone injured?
• Is anyone in immediate danger?
• Was a crime committed?
• Are there witnesses?
• Is there video evidence?
• Does the hotel want someone removed?
• Does someone have a legal right to remain on the property?
• Did the caller themselves engage in unlawful conduct?

Those questions can completely change the direction of an investigation.

A person may call police because they genuinely believe they need help and still become the subject of an investigation.

THE FIRST FEW MINUTES CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING

Imagine a hypothetical hotel emergency.

A guest becomes involved in an argument.

The guest becomes frightened or angry and calls 911.

The dispatcher sends officers.

The guest expects the officers to remove another person.

But when officers arrive, they hear a different account from the other party.

The hotel staff provides additional information.

Security cameras show another sequence of events.

Perhaps the guest damaged property.

Perhaps there was an earlier physical confrontation.

Perhaps the caller was not authorized to remain in a particular part of the hotel.

Suddenly, the officers are dealing with an entirely different situation from the one initially described during the 911 call.

This is why THE 911 CALL IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION.

The dispatcher generally has only the information supplied by the caller.

Officers are responsible for determining what happened after they arrive.

WHY HOTEL INCIDENTS CAN BECOME COMPLICATED

Hotels are unusual locations for police calls because they combine aspects of private property, temporary accommodation, and public access.

A guest may have a legitimate right to occupy a rented room.

At the same time, the hotel can have rules concerning:

NOISE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

THREATS

VIOLENCE

UNAUTHORIZED GUESTS

DISTURBANCES

ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

FAILURE TO FOLLOW HOTEL POLICIES

When a serious dispute occurs, hotel management may become part of the investigation.

Police may ask hotel employees what they observed.

They may request security footage.

They may determine whether management wants someone removed.

And depending on the circumstances, they may investigate whether someone committed a criminal offense.

HOTEL ROOM 213 DOES NOT TELL US THE WHOLE STORY

The thumbnail prominently displays the number 213.

That detail might appear to suggest a specific real incident.

But room numbers are not enough to identify a case.

There are thousands of hotels and countless rooms numbered 213 throughout the United States.

A search for incidents involving hotel room 213 produces many unrelated police and court cases.

One documented Texas appellate case, for example, involved a hotel room numbered 213 and a police response to complaints about a disruptive guest. But that case involved a male guest, not the woman shown in the thumbnail, and therefore it should not be presented as the source of this particular image.

This illustrates an important research principle:

A SIMILAR DETAIL DOES NOT PROVE THAT TWO STORIES ARE THE SAME CASE.

HOTEL GUESTS STILL HAVE IMPORTANT RIGHTS

Being inside a hotel does not mean a guest has no legal protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed privacy expectations in hotel rooms.

In Stoner v. California, the Court rejected the idea that a hotel clerk could simply give police permission to search a guest's occupied hotel room in place of the guest's consent or appropriate legal authority.

The principle is significant.

A hotel room is not automatically treated like an open public space simply because hotel employees own or manage the property.

A guest can have legally protected interests in the room.

But those protections do not mean a hotel guest can do anything they want.

The circumstances matter.

A HOTEL ROOM IS NOT A PRIVATE KINGDOM

The opposite misconception is also dangerous.

A hotel guest does not necessarily have unlimited authority to remain in a room regardless of circumstances.

Hotels can establish contractual rules for occupancy.

Management can terminate a guest's stay under applicable law and the hotel's agreement.

If someone becomes a trespasser after their lawful right to remain has ended, police involvement may become possible.

The exact rules vary by state.

That means an officer may need to establish whether a person is actually a lawful guest, whether the stay has been terminated, whether the person has been warned, and whether the circumstances satisfy the relevant legal requirements.

TRESPASS CAN BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT LOOKS

The Office of Justice Programs has discussed the difficulties police can face when responding to trespassing complaints.

Its material notes that officers need to determine whether someone is actually a trespasser rather than a lawful guest or resident. It also discusses the importance of evidence showing that a person has been warned to stay away.

This is particularly relevant to hotels.

Suppose hotel management says:

“We want this person gone.”

That statement alone may not answer every legal question.

Officers may still need to determine:

• Is the person a registered guest?
• Has the stay been terminated?
• Was notice given?
• Is the person inside their rented room?
• Did management authorize police intervention?
• Has the person committed another offense?
• Does state law provide a particular eviction process?

The answers can differ from one jurisdiction to another.

WHEN A HOTEL CALLS POLICE

Hotels routinely interact with law enforcement for many different reasons.

These can include:

THEFT

ASSAULT

DISTURBANCES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

DOMESTIC CONFLICTS

TRESPASS

WELFARE CHECKS

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY

MEDICAL EMERGENCIES

The Office of Justice Programs has also documented hotel and motel crime-prevention programs involving cooperation between law enforcement and hotel management. These programs can include security personnel, surveillance cameras, lighting, property policies, and coordination with police.

So when officers arrive at a hotel, they may already have information from employees, security staff, or other guests.

The person who called 911 may not be the only source of information.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POLICE ARRIVE?

The first priority is generally SAFETY.

Officers need to determine whether anyone is currently in danger.

They may separate people.

They may ask one person to remain in a particular location.

They may speak with hotel employees.

They may inspect visible evidence.

They may determine whether someone needs medical attention.

And if a crime appears to have occurred, they may begin collecting evidence.

The caller may be interviewed.

The person being accused may also be interviewed.

Witnesses can be questioned.

Security footage may become important.

Hotel key-card records may potentially provide information about access.

Phone messages or other digital evidence may also become relevant depending on the case.

HOTEL SECURITY CAMERAS CAN CHANGE AN INVESTIGATION

Hotels commonly use surveillance cameras in public and common areas.

These cameras can potentially provide information that neither party's verbal account can establish.

For example, imagine a guest says another person entered the hallway and attacked them.

Hotel video could potentially show:

• who entered;
• when they entered;
• where they went;
• whether another person followed;
• whether anyone was carrying an object;
• whether a confrontation occurred;
• and what happened afterward.

That does not automatically determine criminal liability, but it can become an important piece of evidence.

This is one reason police officers may not immediately accept either side's account.

THE CALLER CAN BECOME THE SUSPECT

This is the part of the thumbnail that makes the headline dramatic.

The idea that someone calls police for assistance and then ends up in handcuffs seems contradictory.

But legally, there is no rule saying:

“THE PERSON WHO CALLED 911 CANNOT BE ARRESTED.”

The caller may be a victim.

The caller may be a witness.

The caller may be a suspect.

The caller could potentially be all three in different parts of an investigation.

For example, two people may have assaulted one another.

One person might call police first.

Officers can still investigate whether that caller committed an offense.

The timing of the 911 call does not determine guilt or innocence.

A 911 CALL DOES NOT CREATE IMMUNITY

Another important distinction is between REQUESTING POLICE ASSISTANCE and BEING EXEMPT FROM INVESTIGATION.

If someone calls 911 and falsely reports an emergency, that may itself create legal problems depending on state law.

The National 911 Program notes that false or malicious calls place burdens on emergency communications systems, and current state legislation includes measures addressing false reporting, repeated non-emergency calls, and interference with 911 systems.

That does not mean every mistaken 911 call is criminal.

People can misunderstand situations.

People can panic.

People can call emergency services because they genuinely believe they are in danger.

The important distinction is between an ACCIDENTAL OR GOOD-FAITH CALL and conduct that intentionally abuses the emergency system.

WHAT IF THE CALLER WAS ACTUALLY IN DANGER?

There is another side to this story.

Someone who genuinely needs police protection should not avoid calling 911 because they are afraid officers might investigate them.

If there is an immediate emergency, the National 911 Program says people should call 911 and be prepared to provide their location and details about what is happening.

A person who believes they are being threatened, attacked, or otherwise placed in immediate danger should communicate that information clearly to the dispatcher.

The dispatcher may ask:

WHERE ARE YOU?

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

IS ANYONE INJURED?

IS THE PERSON STILL THERE?

ARE THERE WEAPONS?

WHAT DOES THE PERSON LOOK LIKE?

Those questions are designed to help responders understand the situation before they arrive.

WHY HOTEL 911 CALLS REQUIRE ACCURATE LOCATION INFORMATION

Hotels present a special challenge for emergency dispatchers.

A caller might simply say:

“I'm at the hotel.”

That is not enough.

The dispatcher may need:

THE HOTEL NAME

STREET ADDRESS

ROOM NUMBER

FLOOR

CALLBACK NUMBER

The National 911 Program specifically advises callers inside large buildings to provide the address and room or apartment number when applicable.

This is particularly important because hotels can have hundreds of rooms.

A response team needs to know exactly where to go.

HOTEL PHONE SYSTEMS HAVE ALSO CREATED 911 PROBLEMS

There is an interesting piece of U.S. emergency-communications history connected specifically to hotels.

The National 911 Program explains that KARI'S LAW was created after Kari Hunt was killed in a motel room in 2013. Her daughter attempted to call 911 but could not get through because the motel telephone system required an outside-line access code.

Federal rules implementing Kari's Law require covered multi-line telephone systems to allow users to directly reach 911 without first dialing an outside-line prefix.

This is an example of how a seemingly small technical detail can become a major safety issue.

Today, someone inside a hotel should be able to access emergency services without having to understand complicated telephone-system procedures where those federal requirements apply.

WHAT IF THE POLICE ARRIVE AND THE CALLER IS AGGRESSIVE?

The situation can change rapidly.

An officer may arrive expecting a victim who needs assistance.

Instead, the person may be shouting, refusing instructions, attempting to leave, or physically confronting someone.

At that point, officers must reassess.

The question is no longer simply:

“WHO CALLED 911?”

The question becomes:

“WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?”

Officers may need to protect themselves and other people.

They may issue commands.

They may separate individuals.

They may attempt to calm the situation.

If a person commits an offense in the officers' presence or there is another lawful basis for arrest, the person's status can change from caller to ARRESTEE.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DE-ESCALATION

Police encounters can become dangerous when emotions are already high.

De-escalation can involve several strategies:

CALM COMMUNICATION

DISTANCE

TIME

SEPARATION

CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS

ACTIVE LISTENING

The purpose is not to let someone ignore lawful instructions.

It is to prevent an emotionally charged situation from becoming unnecessarily dangerous.

This can be particularly important inside hotels because other guests may be nearby.

A confrontation in a hallway can disturb multiple rooms.

A loud argument can bring additional guests into the area.

And a physical struggle in a confined hotel room can create hazards for everyone involved.

THE ROLE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Hotel employees can be critical witnesses.

A front-desk employee may know:

• who rented the room;
• whether another person was registered;
• whether complaints had been made;
• whether the guest had been warned;
• whether the reservation was still active;
• whether management had asked the guest to leave.

A manager may also be able to explain hotel policy to officers.

But hotel employees are not automatically investigators or judges.

Their statements are evidence that officers can consider alongside other information.

WHAT IF THE HOTEL WANTS SOMEONE REMOVED?

This is where the distinction between HOTEL POLICY and CRIMINAL LAW becomes important.

A hotel can have rules governing its property.

But police authority does not arise solely because an employee is unhappy with a guest.

Depending on state law, an officer may need to determine whether there is a valid legal basis for removal or arrest.

The OJP discussion of trespassing illustrates why officers must establish whether a person actually lacks permission to remain.

The specific rules vary by jurisdiction.

Therefore, a viral video cannot be used to establish a universal rule about what every hotel or police department can do.

THE SUPREME COURT AND HOTEL ROOM PRIVACY

Hotel rooms have also been important in constitutional law.

In Stoner v. California, the Supreme Court considered whether police could rely on a hotel clerk's consent to search a guest's room.

The Court rejected that theory, explaining that the hotel clerk did not have the authority to give police consent to search the guest's occupied room simply because the clerk worked for the hotel.

That does not mean officers can never enter a hotel room.

There are other legal bases that can apply, including appropriate warrants, valid consent from an authorized person, and certain emergency circumstances.

The key point is that HOTEL MANAGEMENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONTROL A GUEST'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO A VIRAL ARREST VIDEO

A dramatic thumbnail can make an encounter look simple.

A woman is in a hotel.

Police arrive.

She is upset.

She is handcuffed.

Therefore, viewers may assume:

“SHE MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING.”

But that conclusion is too broad.

The opposite assumption is equally problematic:

“SHE CALLED POLICE, SO SHE MUST HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM.”

Neither conclusion follows automatically.

The evidence must determine what happened.

ARREST DOES NOT MEAN CONVICTION

This distinction is essential for any article involving an alleged arrest.

An ARREST means police have taken a person into custody under legal authority.

A CHARGE identifies an alleged offense.

A CONVICTION means a court has determined guilt under the applicable legal process.

These are different stages.

Because no reliable court record was located establishing the final outcome of the incident represented by this thumbnail, the article should not state that the woman was convicted of anything.

The headline's phrase “GETTING ARRESTED INSTEAD” should therefore be treated as the thumbnail's characterization rather than proof of a particular final legal result.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE ARREST?

If a person is arrested, several things can happen.

They may be booked.

They may be photographed and fingerprinted.

They may be informed of the alleged offense.

They may appear before a judge.

They may be released.

Prosecutors may file charges.

Charges may later be dismissed.

A plea agreement may occur.

The case may proceed to trial.

Or there may be another legal resolution.

Without official court records, it is impossible to responsibly predict which of these occurred in a particular case.

WHY BODYCAM FOOTAGE DOES NOT ALWAYS ANSWER EVERYTHING

Modern police bodycams can provide powerful evidence.

They may show:

OFFICER COMMANDS

THE SUSPECT'S RESPONSE

PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS

STATEMENTS

ARREST PROCEDURES

CONDITIONS AT THE SCENE

But even complete bodycam footage may not show everything.

A camera cannot necessarily capture what happened before officers arrived.

It may not record private conversations.

It may not show surveillance footage from another camera.

It may not contain every witness statement.

And online channels may edit or shorten recordings.

That is why BODYCAM FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONE PART OF THE EVIDENCE.

WHAT THE THUMBNAIL CAN AND CANNOT ESTABLISH

The uploaded image clearly presents a story about a hotel guest and police intervention.

It shows a woman near a hotel room and an officer apparently placing her under arrest.

But the image itself cannot establish:

• the woman's identity;
• the officer's identity;
• the hotel's identity;
• the date;
• the reason for the 911 call;
• the exact criminal allegation;
• whether the woman was convicted;
• or the complete circumstances leading to the arrest.

Those details require independent documentation.

The searches conducted for this article did not locate a sufficiently reliable source connecting all of those elements to a single verified case.

Therefore, the safest factual approach is to treat the thumbnail as an ILLUSTRATIVE REPRESENTATION OF A HOTEL POLICE INCIDENT, rather than inventing a backstory.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL EMERGENCY AND A DISPUTE

Another important issue is the reason for the 911 call.

A person may believe something is an emergency when it turns out not to be a criminal emergency.

That does not necessarily mean the caller acted maliciously.

For example, someone might call because they feel threatened during an argument.

Police arrive and determine that no crime occurred.

The caller may simply receive advice and the parties may separate.

The situation becomes different if investigators determine that someone intentionally fabricated an emergency or used 911 to harass another person.

The National 911 Program specifically warns against inappropriate use of the emergency system and notes that false or malicious calls can burden emergency communications centers.

WHY HOTEL STAFF MAY ALSO CALL POLICE

A hotel employee may contact police when they believe there is a safety problem.

For example:

A GUEST IS THREATENING STAFF.

A FIGHT IS OCCURRING.

A GUEST IS DAMAGING PROPERTY.

A PERSON REFUSES TO LEAVE AFTER LOSING PERMISSION TO REMAIN.

A GUEST MAY BE EXPERIENCING A MEDICAL CRISIS.

ANOTHER GUEST REPORTS A SERIOUS DISTURBANCE.

These calls can result in very different police responses.

The officer's job is to determine what actually occurred.

WHY A HOTEL GUEST SHOULD BE CAREFUL DURING A POLICE CONTACT

If officers arrive because of a dispute, emotional reactions can make the situation worse.

Arguing with officers may not change their assessment.

Moving toward another person may increase the perceived safety risk.

Refusing every instruction may lead to further escalation.

The safest approach in a real emergency is generally to communicate clearly, explain what happened, and follow lawful instructions while preserving the opportunity to address the matter through the appropriate legal process.

That does not mean a person gives up their rights.

It means the immediate goal is SAFETY AND CONTROL.

THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHY DID THE ARREST HAPPEN?

Without the official case file for the thumbnail's specific incident, we cannot answer that question with certainty.

And that is precisely why the dramatic headline should not become the factual conclusion.

The available evidence supports a broader lesson:

CALLING POLICE DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT POLICE WILL AGREE WITH YOUR VERSION OF EVENTS.

Officers investigate.

They compare statements.

They consider physical evidence.

They may review surveillance footage.

They may speak with witnesses.

And they make decisions based on the facts and law available to them.

A HOTEL IS FULL OF EVIDENCE

Unlike some private disputes, hotel incidents can potentially leave behind multiple forms of evidence.

There may be:

SECURITY CAMERA VIDEO

KEY-CARD RECORDS

911 RECORDINGS

DISPATCH RECORDS

PHONE RECORDS

TEXT MESSAGES

PHOTOGRAPHS

WITNESS STATEMENTS

HOTEL INCIDENT REPORTS

BODYCAM FOOTAGE

This can make it possible for investigators to reconstruct events more accurately than simply relying on two conflicting stories.

The challenge is obtaining and properly interpreting that evidence.

WHY THE 911 RECORDING MATTERS

The 911 call itself can become part of the evidence.

911.gov explains that call-takers ask questions about the emergency, location, and circumstances and may provide instructions while responders are on the way.

The recording may therefore establish:

• what the caller initially reported;
• what information the dispatcher received;
• whether the caller described a threat;
• whether injuries were reported;
• where the caller was;
• and what the caller requested.

But even the 911 call is still only one part of the case.

People can be frightened.

People can misunderstand events.

People can omit information.

And events can change after the call.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT INVENTING THE MISSING DETAILS

This is particularly important with viral bodycam content.

Online channels sometimes attach dramatic titles to footage.

Thumbnails may combine multiple images.

The headline may simplify a complicated event.

A video can be reposted without the original description.

And viewers may add their own theories in comments.

None of those things should replace VERIFIED SOURCES.

For this particular thumbnail, the exact incident could not be reliably matched to an official police or court record during the available search.

Therefore, claims about a specific woman's identity, hotel, charges, or court outcome would be speculation.

WHAT THIS STORY CAN TEACH US ABOUT 911

The most important lesson is not that someone was supposedly arrested after calling for help.

It is that 911 IS AN EMERGENCY RESOURCE, NOT A GUARANTEE OF A PARTICULAR POLICE OUTCOME.

If someone is in immediate danger, calling 911 can be appropriate.

The dispatcher collects information.

Officers respond.

The officers then assess the situation.

Their responsibility is not simply to follow the caller's requested outcome.

Their responsibility is to respond to the circumstances they find.

That distinction is fundamental to emergency policing.

A CALLER CAN BE A VICTIM AND STILL BE INVESTIGATED

There are also situations in which people involved in the same incident may have competing allegations.

One person may report an assault.

The other may report a separate assault.

Police may investigate both.

That means a person could genuinely have been harmed and still potentially face an allegation arising from their own conduct.

The existence of one valid allegation does not automatically erase another.

This is another reason police cannot simply determine the entire case based on who called first.

THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE OVER ASSUMPTION

A good investigation should move beyond assumptions.

If a guest says:

“SHE ATTACKED ME.”

Police need to determine what evidence supports that statement.

If another person says:

“HE ATTACKED ME FIRST.”

That statement also needs to be evaluated.

Officers may examine injuries, witness accounts, video, physical evidence, messages, and other information.

The goal is to establish what can be supported.

WHY VIRAL HEADLINES CAN DISTORT A STORY

The phrase “BUT ENDS UP GETTING ARRESTED INSTEAD” is designed to create curiosity.

It produces an obvious question:

“WHAT DID SHE DO?”

That is effective as a thumbnail.

But it can encourage readers to assume that the person must have committed a serious offense.

The evidence may be more complicated.

The arrest could involve a relatively narrow allegation.

The case could later be dismissed.

The person could be found not guilty.

Or the online video may omit facts that materially change the story.

This is why responsible reporting should avoid treating a headline as the same thing as a court finding.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The thumbnail presents a compelling scenario: A HOTEL GUEST CALLS 911 EXPECTING HELP, BUT THE POLICE RESPONSE ENDS WITH AN ARREST.

That situation is legally and practically possible.

Calling 911 does not automatically determine who is the victim or who will be investigated. The National 911 Program explains that emergency dispatchers collect information and send the appropriate responders, while officers must deal with the circumstances they encounter after arrival.

Hotels add another layer of complexity.

A guest can have privacy interests in an occupied hotel room, as illustrated by the Supreme Court's decision in Stoner v. California. At the same time, hotel management can have legitimate authority concerning the property's rules and a guest's right to remain, while police may investigate alleged criminal conduct.

Trespass questions can be particularly complicated because officers must determine whether a person is actually a trespasser rather than a lawful guest.

And once police arrive, the person who made the original call is not immune from investigation.

The caller may be a victim.

The caller may be a witness.

The caller may become a suspect.

The facts determine the role.

For this particular thumbnail, the exact underlying case could not be independently verified to the level necessary to responsibly provide a person's name, hotel identity, specific charges, or final court result. Those details should therefore remain UNVERIFIED rather than being invented.

What the broader evidence does show is that 911 CALLS, HOTEL SECURITY, POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, and GUEST RIGHTS can intersect in complicated ways.

A person may call because they believe they need help.

Police may arrive expecting one story.

Then the investigation may reveal something completely different.

And that is why the most important question in a dramatic bodycam story is not simply:

“WHO CALLED 911?”

It is:

“WHAT DID THE EVIDENCE SHOW AFTER POLICE ARRIVED?”

That is the difference between a viral headline and a complete investigation.