whether a seizure of a package was one reasonable at its inception because it was not justified by reason of reasonable suspicion the second type the claim only arises when there has been a justified season first place and the second claim would be about whether the length of the seizure was reasonable notwithstanding that the initial seizure was justified a reasonable suspicion this case is about the first type of claim not the second in our contention  that when officer talks seized mr hwang's package without reasonable suspicion and he did that when he pulled it from the normal stream of processing at the federal like federal express facility in garden grove california and the court this court citing van lowe and reaffirm that a government agent may season to take packages if the agent has a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity let me ask you another question i read your brief very carefully referring to page fifty and you say on that page as was the case in vandal in an elder here's the part that i'm interested in it appears that the postal inspectors in england quote suspected that the defendant's packets contain  from that's on page forty one yes for twenty starts i have a the westlaw versions i don't have the book version but thanks for twenty starts with the words under the fourth amendment and minutely england doesn't tell us whether or at what point they suspected that or whether they suspected it just because they knew something or because they suspected it after they had looked at the packages but that's what the court said what do we do with the final sentence that says here we need that consider whether the postal inspectors have reasonable and i think it will just vision to seize the packages before they obtain the search warrant because until all the packages were searched for so if these warrants no seizure occurred they seem to be saying that if something is in the course of transported either by the mail you say not so much so with which with respect to federal express that unless allowed by the fourth amendment and i thought the fourth amendment rule is so long as you do not detain the parcel longer than it would ordinarily be detained in the course of transit you're all right that is what england says but i don't think that that disposed to get here in ten days or a week or maybe two weeks is the principle of the fourth amendment really that the government can do anything to that package for those two weeks as long as they get here on time being taken off the ship  of documents many of which are part of the record of this is based in the court below were never submitted to the district court and in fact there is no proof in the record of this case that it was delivered on time all the government has said it time and time government was asked by the district court to make a profit for about facts and the trial lawyer in the case rejected the proffer and then the government of health the court the district court asked for supplemental briefing and both pull the parcels that's not government agents pulling parcels at the federal last federal express facility are not part of the normal processing of a package and that might be another distinction between this case in england because in england we're talking about the u about the label noticed something about the smell of it or had brought his dog over where it was we wouldn't be here making this argument already argument what happened was he pulled the pack leak if we were to rule in your favor why would we not be invalidating the entire homeland security procedure of random checks of everything that's in transit in other words if we were all there has to be some kind of suspicion call it what you want aren't we overruling the entire homeland security approach now to throw it all in france at one little while all that has to be done this one is done which is you have your luggage on the conveyor belt at the airport and they walk the dog by the conveyor belt the dog the case law is settled on this point both the england court as well as the hernandez support talked about reasonable expectations on the part of the recipient of any package and that expectation is soley that they're going to get timely delivery at a date in really know your honor that's that was my boo boo i use the word pull and that was the issue of what happened in the court below and unfortunately that my poor use of the word has has really been rubbed in my face both in the briefing as well as in the argument if you look at the todd affidavit it's very clear he arrives at the garden grove fed ex facility at nine he gets permission from dave apso rob the customer service rep to go into the holding room which is defined as where packages are left for shipment wherever there are destine he goes in at nine o five with audio five minutes later audio alerts in the whole room there are seven parcels there on a chair they're on a cart and they're on the floor  mailing let me find the exact reference where he defines what the whole it's paragraph to on the x or cracker thirty one the last sentences to hold room is a room designed for processing a happened to alert on one particular parcel indicating a positive alert and i believe the case was settled that that in and of itself from a certified narcotics canine would constitute probable cause so within five minutes of that exam auto alerted at that point the investigator takes the parcel takes it out to his office which is as stated in his affidavit at the airport the orange county airport and i think councils correct the fed ex world so he actually took it out took it to his office and then conducted further investigation now george gilmore below it was looked at the issue of my use of the word paul she was she thought that was you know a distinction but if you look at th the record in the court's order at supplemental acts of record ninety three when the court actually says the parcel was delivered at three forty the next day november third and that the sign for an accepted part is that  didn't make a difference legally and the government with smith said it doesn't it's embarrassing for me because the defense has certainly use that to argue why that makes a big difference but like yeah it's an artificial distinction just like the distinction that somehow fed ex your you have a situation where you're presented with no reasonable suspicion and in that case it was clear the court already found that there was reasonable suspicion and then focused on whether there was an interference with the normal delivery but i don't think that anyone the delivery time once they have probable cause the delivery time it's well goes out the window right when they can seize it never deliver as far as i'm concerned violence was a moment but if they were if they were to take it and then sit on it for three days for example and then do a dark stuff i think that's what they're show that the government did everything right as soon as he got it and they have the alert he took it out he got the search warrant within two and a half hours which i think is pretty good and there really was no delay in attaining that