What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Thomas E. MINER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 403, Docket 91-1384.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 15, 1991.
Decided Feb. 13, 1992.
John C. Charbonneau, Asst. U.S. Atty., Burlington, Yt. (George J. Terwilliger, III, U.S. Atty., Charles A. Caruso, First Asst. U.S. Atty., David V. Kirby, Chief, Crim. Div., William B. Darrow, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas A. Zonay, Rutland, Vt. (John J. Kennedy, Carroll, George & Pratt, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, NEWMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
The government appeals from two orders of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Billings, C.J.), the first of which granted Thomas E. Miner’s motion to suppress evidence and the second of which denied the government’s motion for reconsideration. We reverse.
On March 30, 1990, at 5:46 p.m., Miner telephoned the Brattleboro barracks of the Vermont State Police, reported that his pickup truck had been vandalized, and requested that the police come to see what had occurred. Although Miner testified at the suppression hearing that he only telephoned to report the vandalism for insurance purposes, he admitted that he made no mention of this: “I didn’t say for insurance purposes^ I just wanted it investigated and wanted it on report.” Trooper Kraig LaPorte, with whom Miner talked, testified that he understood from the conversation that Miner wanted the vandalism investigated. Trooper LaPorte told Miner that he would be over as soon as he could. He was to meet Miner at the roadway end of Miner’s 1000-foot long driveway where the truck was parked blocking the driveway. Because Miner did not have a telephone in the motorbus where he was staying, which was over a hill at the opposite end of the blocked driveway, Trooper La-Porte was to activate his cruiser’s warning lights and siren when he arrived so that Miner would know he was there and could meet him.
Trooper LaPorte, accompanied by Trooper Thomas Revene, arrived at the scene of the vandalism around midnight. He activated the cruiser’s warning lights and siren, but Miner, having gone to bed, did not respond. The troopers then proceeded with their investigation. They observed, among other things, that the truck’s windshield and a side window had been smashed. The nature of the damage indicated that one or more objects might have been thrown into the car from the outside. In his effort to locate the possible projectiles, Trooper La-Porte reached through the shattered side window and moved a coat on the passenger’s seat.
Q: And what did you do with that coat?
A: I just moved it to the side to see if I could see any items that were possibly used to break the windshield of the truck.
In so doing, LaPorte uncovered an open cardboard box containing ammunition and two handgun holsters. Finding no projectiles or other pertinent evidence, the troopers photographed the truck and concluded their investigation.
Because the troopers knew that Miner had prior felony convictions, they reported what they had seen to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. On April 5, 1990, Agent Forrest H. LeMoine submitted an application for a warrant to search Miner’s vehicles and residence, incorporating therein the facts concerning the troopers’ investigation and discovery. The search pursuant to this warrant resulted in the seizure of various firearms, and Miner was indicted for alleged violations of firearm statutes.
Miner moved to suppress evidence of the firearms, arguing that the troopers had unlawfully searched his truck without a warrant and that the subsequent warrant-authorized search was a fruit of this illegality. Accepting both prongs of this argument as valid, the district court granted the motion.
In support of its holding that the troopers’ investigation constituted an unlawful search, the district court cited United States v. Mapp, 476 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1973) and United States v. Smith, 308 F.2d 657 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 906, 83 S.Ct. 717, 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963), in which this court discussed the government’s “particularly heavy” burden of showing the vol-untariness of a consent given by one who at the time was subject to actual or implied duress or coercion. This is not such a case. Miner voluntarily called the state police and told them that he wanted the vandali-zation of his truck investigated and on report.
Because of Miner’s testimony that he wanted the investigation and report for insurance purposes and that he did not give the troopers consent to enter the truck, the district court held that the troopers made an unlawful search. This was error. Miner said nothing to the troopers about insurance purposes and never forbade them from entering his truck. As is true of most jural relationships, it is a person’s manifest, rather than undisclosed, intention that determines his rights and obligations. See 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2413, at 40 (Chadbourn rev. 1981); 1 Williston on Contracts § 21, at 42 (3d ed. 1957); Atlantic Lines Ltd. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 547 F.2d 11, 13 (2d Cir.1976).
We may take it as a given that vandalization of motor vehicles often involves the removal of radios and other interior appliances. It is not surprising therefore that the district court found the interi- or search of such a vehicle to be the “usual police procedure in an investigation request.” The police officer making such inspection is performing his “community caretaking functions”, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), and his duty to protect the lives and property of citizens, United States v. Markland, 635 F.2d 174, 176 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 991, 101 S.Ct. 2332, 68 L.Ed.2d 851 (1981). There was no showing that the troopers who were following standard procedures in the instant case acted in bad faith for the purpose of investigating Miner rather than his vandalized vehicle. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S.Ct. 738, 741, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 375-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3100-01, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Under the circumstances, Miner had no objectively reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy in his damaged vehicle. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); United States v. Metzger, 778 F.2d 1195, 1200 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 3279, 91 L.Ed.2d 568 (1986).
Our holding that Trooper LaPorte did not conduct an unlawful search of Miner’s truck disposes of the district court’s holding that the subsequent warrant search was tainted.
The district court’s orders are reversed.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 6