the radio or stereo that was stuffed into the backpack even though the defendant was given a chance to take anything out he wanted to do we have an issue there your honor i don't think we have an issue there because the  less it was clearly around us and i think that this court can look at the facts that the facts of the case are that the officer gave mr franklin an opportunity to take anything out of the vehicle but did not make it  understand it from the record i mean you can help me on this seems to be partially covered with a blanket one right and the transcript of the evidence trade hearing on page fifty two of the transcript you can see that top so that all the items in the basket could not have seen from the outside of the basket so we take the position that this is the paper bag versus the p g briefcase one man's closed container is is not the same as another man's clothes container so this term we were dealing with the last caller does this turn on the concern with alaska about the right of privacy and this is all based upon the right of privacy is dictated see this blue paint but that wasn't something they could see without taking the blanket off is that right that's it's my understanding from the from the testimony on page fifty two and i think if it even goes over fifty three that he could not backup argument under the anchorage police department procedures which is to say they're not to do anything except that which is in plain view correct correct and obviously if you've got a blanket over it what's inside covered by the blanket is not in plain view what's the underlying rationale and it seems to me that the underlying rationale is that if if we assume that someone had basically understands the law when he because of vehicles being a pound it is being asked do you want to do you want do you want to take anything with you you know this is going leader should know th privacy even if the person driving a car has no idea of us to supreme court anything else if we cover something up or she cover something up we do it because they don't want people to see it so they don't have to know the law they say i want this to be private then you have to that is the magistrate's statement says in this federal prosecution the court is not limited by alaska supreme court's more narrow holdings based on alaska state law and the courts referring to daniel but then there is a motion discovery last frankly case there was a question from the panel concerning the notation in the anchorage police department's code concerning inventorying on the evidence or items  criminal investigation and so there might this mean this may raise notions of searches incident will rise but obviously some criminal parlance found its way into the ordinance there which does not exist in the context of an impound for a traffic violation non criminal context which the government feels is significant in this case because the contention is that an inventory search is purely an administrative exercise and not a criminal investigation let's start with first principles here in terms of the circuit law and then circumstances and we then we have to benchmark whether or not these items are closed containers is that where we're really left in terms of the government's dispute in this case i don't think so you're on our own and here's why not follow washington law as set forth by the state's highest court this court will recall that in one is what the court decided was whether an advisement to the owner of the vehicle had been properly provided by the washington state troopers in advance of an inventory search be conducted the driver being given an opportunity to waive any protection in terms of a property clean the might have been afforded by the officers conducting such a search this this advisement idea was not something that was  briefcases containers or packages within a vehicle which is subjected to an inventory search that's seems to be a fairly clear statement of the law of alaska and they go on to note that in the record there's also an actual actual expectation of privacy in his briefcase but it the court never says that having made that broad statement about closed containers you must  first that a person of exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy and second that the expectation be one that the sides are prepared to recognize the right as reasonable but they say they say clearly that the protection is afforded to any clo but maybe maybe what you're you know obviously these these concepts are folded into each other when you get to the notion of what you have but if you have a vehicle with a clo standing after that the government attorney was conducting the hearing gave up on the issue and said this person is standing to challenge to move to suppress the evidence but the issue of abandonment is significant in that the person was told mr franken was told you can take and it is at that point that the reasonableness of mr franklin's expectation of privacy diminishes at that point the government's view is that the fourth amendment is not a toggle switch that is on or off  switch is the expectation of privacy was very strong in that closed container until the time he left the scene after being told that he could take his backpack with him and he said that he was going to that's the difference the government is not part mr franken for leaving the scene he was told that he could do it and he leaves the backpack with the stereo thing on the front seat of the car was there does this say anything to the officer he does your honor and as you say the officer's testimony simply says that he mentioned so there's no qualified there's no and the principles and the policies behind all this and sounds like you're arguing policies and principles what they say in the last since before the military three years we think that the protections of the interiors of closed luggage briefcases containers and packages transported a vehicle reflects fundamental expectations of privacy which alaska society would recognize as reasonable sounds like you're arguing against that policy and if we'd have to change the policy on which the alaska supreme court ordered i don't think you'd be changing the policy under and again i'm responding i realize my time is expired and any thinking of the argument is this your honor  different from a situation where a person is told if you want anything out of this car take it out of the car the car isn't even this gentleman's car he's a total stranger to it in total in every other respect and then the man walks away into having signal that the one thing that was value to him implicating the bridge police departments only articulated policy for protecting property and he walked away from the scene with out the back this is so different from daniel your honor that this court does not have to apply in the same manner he did in one