court fifty years ago in davis recognized the obvious danger that baggage screening will be subverted into a general search for evidence of the crime and said that an administrative baggage search must be limited in its is intrusive consistent with the satisfaction of the administration justifies the only administrative need justifying bag searches is the discovery of explosives or weapons items that could be dangerous for air travelers in this country and the intrusiveness in this case was taking a knife and slicing open a package inside an air travelers checked luggage the united states supreme court has been clear including in florida v well that officers cannot be granted limited limitless discretion to conduct administrative searches and we believe the primary problem with this search was that the record shows that this officer both had and exercised limitless discretion to search their well says there has to be some guidance cabin's guide limits the discretion of officers  well there was a search of an inventory search of a vehicle and the officers decided they wanted to open up a trunk that was in the car and the court said that without some guidance from the administration just the officers decided they want to do that is insufficient to make the search it legal in this case the record is from t s a officer soto that if he does not feel happy or ok he sees something he does not like then he will open up a package he will in this case slice open a bag with a knife the officer said something might be in there he could not articulate any to just stop on the road because a package like this could be an explosive bodo claim that right well it is different from a search of a car under this court has consistently held to see if the search is now obviously all of us are americans all of us that live the last you know twenty years in this country where there's been even heightened their safety concerns and yes it is a proper purpose to search for explosives or weapons  this reason the officer swipes all six sides of the package put this was into the explosive trace detection machine and that machine returned negative results for explosive so at that point in order to go further and open the package is our position that there would have to be either some sort of evidence of guiding the doesn't just apply to us or so little bit applies to all t officers all over this country that tells them in what situations they can do that which there was no evidence of in this record and it's the government's burden to present or he would have had to have articulated something  well i have my primary argument is that the protocol is insufficient and that the government did not meet their burden of showing in this case that there is any protocol other than each individual officer to you know feel ok or feel search in that case the x ray machine alerted so they took a look at the package when they took a look at the package the items fell out photographs or papers it was analyzing the search of those photographs and papers the officer in that case articulated a rationale for needing to check them because there could be sheet explosive something that can be concealed between papers the you know could pose a threat their safety so the officer was allowed to leave through those papers in the course of doing so found the child pornography but the court was not saying and has never said no court is that there's just carte blanche to  at that point the search then happened they opened up the package they found the cocaine what was the white powder that ended up being cocaine inside and it was at that point that the explosive actually was called so i don't we don't believe that the explosive expert packages with nothing more this case we know that it went through the available technology which is what the court has talked about is you know these explosive trace detection machines that went through them and it was found not to have any explosives so at that point they need something to be able to articulate to give the court something to hang its hat on to say that there's suspicion for this invasion of privacy and they didn't have that in this case and if the court upheld in this case it is open season on any package in any bag anywhere in this country but that's not what the case is that ever so obviously a move by time so reserved whatever time because based on the protocol he did not have an unbridled discretion or a broad description and broad discretion to do whatever he wanted he did it every single thing he did was based on she has a protocol to res or he didn't articulate it correctly in the district court when planck said what do you mean by you're not happy what do you mean you were not satisfied by the packaging and in e r excerpts of record one hundred and fifty three officer so just that even though the e g the machine that had a negative results they still did not rule out the possibility we brought mr soto that there could be danger in or an explosive inside the might not matter and he was looking for drugs only but it didn't matter whether a muslim in the district court leave it out when it matters and when it does not matter when the district  this context in the facts here no because it was not a she did not use the pretext of the knowledge ministry to search to look for drugs the record clearly shows that he only searched the sluggish because he actually triggered it he did i don't think the district court respectfully i don't think the district court blatantly said i find officer search his testimony i'm credible i think it distinguish that he thought this because i don't know why he said st i've never seen drugs and then during trial i found drugs but he made it clear in his order that his testimony about why he thought the package was suspicious and why he could open the package had been consistent throughout his suppression testimony his trial system only as well as his motion reconsideration testimony and those facts that the court made did not change and based on those natural findings the court and the district court held that there was no impermissible secondary problematic search therefore  have occurred and what we have in the record and what the were not actually found was that his lead told him to open up the package because he believed it was suspicious it then the supervisor also believed to contain an explosive demonstrating thank you two points quickly first of all this is the government's burden there's no dispute about that to put on evidence to support the search for the fact that we don't have an affidavit from the supervisor the fact that we have no evidence as to what the t s a protocols are in this case that was the government's responsibility put the government argues that the search was lawful because it was constrained by t s a protocol but the only evidence is what sort of said about i'm going to open something up if i don't feel ok with it flirt of the wells is i directly on point for for this for the world invalidates the search when it offers unfettered discretion to an individual officer administrate a search and that's what we have here as to the argument that well this was government need to present some evidence that there is that anything that could actually be packaged like this we know it didn't have detonators wiring because there's an x ray image of it that's in the record that there exists some kind of substantively package like this that you could put in checked baggage says that the subject of intense does matter in these cases that the district court got it wrong on that point and at a minimum the case would need to be remanded for factual findings we know that this officer was already found not to be credible you know that the officer either somehow