removed the panel of the door and the agent actually testified that he removed the panel gently so as to just to find out if there was anything there if there wasn't anything else anything there that he would gently place  question that remain i think the defense counsel below presented evidence that there was a safety concern and he presented evidence regarding the child safety that i would in the back and and provided evidence regarding the american record thirteen there was nothing in the incident report that the agent distinguished how he discovered the mat in the marijuana in the back seat versus how he discovered it in the backseat rust and for them or even in the government's own motion in response to that the motion to suppress the government noted that the upholstery was actually slashed and then in during the agent's testimony just to court during its questioning and the agent actually asked how did you remove the back seat and the agent said i don't recall i unscrewed the back seat or cut it open now looking at the pictures and the evidence presented in the motions the process of it suggests that it was actually open rather than just  that the defendant really has waived the argument that lifting the seat or removing the seat whatever the initial search was was in any way destructive by not raising it at the district court level and by not raising it in the opening brief in that there's no evidence in the record anywhere in any of the questioning or the pictures that demonstrate that the initial search and that's the only search that is relevant to this appeal was any way destructive or cause damage and as a result the search was reasonable and was consistent with what the notations of the fourth amendment if we if we reach the other issue if we reach the second question about the destructive nature of the subsequent search we can my commenting on  do show that the back seat was was fairly well destroyed the seats were cut open and as and started going indicated that was appropriate once the marijuana was found i think it would hinged on whether or not it's important for the vehicle to be able to operate with the passengers who were in it at the time in this case that was an only the driver or whether the test would be whether the vehicle fully occupied would be safe for all of its passengers and i think if that if that were the question the answer you know it would probably be now that the vehicle would have been safer some in the back seat but that's not the case that we have here so i think that that that issue would be better left resolved when it was more squarely in the corner but that it would be a bit more difficult position and one that would require i rebuttal i have a question before you start did the district court was the district court correct in stating that there was only one passenger in the car you mentioned there would be a danger or safety concern about backseat passengers because of the removal right i don't understand your position i don't understand question is that because there were no backseat passengers  looking at the fact that there was a child in the back seat there's a probability that passengers will likely be using the vaccine in the forseeable future i think just because there were passengers immediately at that seat was removed prior to the slashing of the apostrophe so i wanted to make that perfectly certain it wasn't my intent to misrepresent the record but i do know that there are there is evidence in the record that there was a slashing of the back