suspicion what the government is asking for here today is for this court to go to go further than it has before to go further than any other course that share a border circuit to go further than even the supreme court was willing to go in fl distinguish damage to the tire from damage to the car itself the course if we stay that while there was damage to the spare tire the inquiry and the important factor is whether or not there was damage to the to the bat and your honor there was some confusion in the record one asian studies that this part of the truck was in fact metal and the other the other officer said it was it was plastic but it was into the body of the truck itself h the door panels where in the car the activity is taking place because there are different parts of the car that are more or less impenetrable significant to asking for here is the authority to conduct a drilling search in the area of the gas tank where there could be damage done to the vehicle damage done to important wiring in the car or the damage done to great think i understand that however i disagree i think that the important factor here is that three circuits three other circuits have viewed the issue of drilling they've all come to the same conclusion that this is about of the fourth amendment the touchstone the fourth moment is think that they are if nothing else they're instructed as i said these are three three other circuits they've all looked at the issue and they've all come out against it regardless of whether or not they deem it to be your teens or churn or team search and all of that the same issue and they've ruled that it doesn't fact require reasonable suspicion the government is asking this court and i started to be the only court in the country which would allow the  cases that are similar to this case here where it's actually drilled into the body of a vehicle driven by the camper or some other good the supreme court was was inferring that this is exactly the kind of destruction that does require in the middle of the bed and in fact you know just record also in making its findings in this case and this was the excerpt record ninety eight reference that i made the trial court found quote that the gas tank was located closer to the front of the bed of the truck right behind the passenger compartment the strong occurred two feet from the rear of the of the truck so i think on that evidence the record does not indicate that there was any danger and that the inspector knew what he was doing so that alone should give this court reason the pause because every one of those cases this depended on that distinction between a routine and the norm routine search that language permeates those opinions with exactly that distinction that the supreme court  circuit cases and that's why this court shouldn't give those cases any weight on this issue on how far you can go without any suspicion should we buy into that her should we look at the fact that the dog got all excited and ran over and wanted to chew up the truck you are understandably i would say they don't the government doesn't want to be in a position if reason of suspicion has to be the standard a lot of the sources will be compromised that kind of investigatory too will no longer be available there's also deterrence function that comes from the ability to do these  as if the smugglers know that there has to be reasonable suspicion for any kind of drilling if they will make more use of compartments that were issue in this case which was then was just beneath the floor the bed of the truck having the ability to conduct doesn't show that now but of course from cortez roku we also know that the least restrictive means analysis has been rejected in the situation so i don't know the faculty hold against the government that isn't part of the record but i think