luggage after the c t s machine alerted for an oversized liquid air assault or gel the agent open camacho's luggage and then opened in on follow up with the names and addresses and looked at the pictures on credit cards and licenses in the  miss camacho contends the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress that evidence because the agent exceeded the scope of a lawful administrative search now the prism through which we evaluate the search in this case begins with the fourth amendment which protects against time it was about fifteen seconds she went through and read each card pulled out some of the cards and looked at them and she later testified she had read the names and addresses on all of them and looked at the pictures on them during th open the envelope she pulled out several cards in the visually yes and then saw the name then other inform the cards yes you and the names of the dresses the pictures and saw that they were there were different names and addresses and different pictures on them and why isn't it the reason for the search was because the machine alerted to some oversized liquid gels or aerosols right and that maybe an explosive that someone trying to bring on a plane if someone sees a number of identifications there why isn't it appropriate as part of the search for the explosives to look to see does this person have some false identifications here if so might this be a reason to be suspicious we may be dealing with a potential terrorist who's trying to bring on board through the overside liquids oversize liquids gels or aerosols an explosive under the plane i think your honor what we have to do is focus on the fact that the we're dealing with a search which is only reasonable where it's no more extensive nor intensive than necessary in the light of current technology to detect the presence of weapons or explosives so here we have a machine that's alerting only for an oversized liquid gel or aerosol she should go and find that liquid helen air assault she did find it ultimately after she went through the it turned out to be a hair product when she realized it was a hair product and there was no reason to be alarmed also she swab the outside of the back and that would tell her whether there was anything explosive or dangerous in the it be alert leads to a more thorough search during the course of that search if you encounter something that may pose a danger you're supposed to ignore it because that was not the source of the alert is that your argument now i'm looking at the declaration of the officer who searched it and she said that she started to search the bag and at this point having determined what had triggered the alert and based on defendant's reaction and the  the felt i became concerned that she was trying to conceal the contents of the below from t s a inspection and that the may contain hazardous materials so in your view what is the  a officer supposed to do at that point when she became concerned that there was hazardous material materials just put it back because that was not the original alert through the machine well the question is what is the material we got an alert for an oversized gel she finds the sample of she later declares i think that she thought that it might be an initiator for the hazardous material so she can look at the the for well so she can look at the gel find out that it's hair shampoo and she knows that there's no initiator for that gel because it's not  the smaller bottle or something like that all our position is that we're relying on current technology that's what this course is this court's cases say current technology is the c t x machine which tells them what they need n is that in this case she's not trying to go through a novel if she saw something like that even that is hazardous materials that's that's i think where your argument really falls apart for me because yes you're looking for whatever triggered the machine but in the course of that search if you find something that gives rise to some serious concern you can look i don't know a case that says that well i think the cases say that the t s a protocol is that you're to look for the no concern about an initiator and we didn't know that before she looked in the envelope no but she could look for the liquid gel or aerosol and then realized that there's no reason to look in the ample or if you look to me until open season a new shooter should probably do a much more thorough search to make sure she looking to examine what looks like it may be here spray or hear her condition or well i think one of the concerns is that as the defense counsel repeatedly said we don't know what an initiator is so we don't know whether she really needed to look at names and addresses on the cards to determine whether or not they were initiators but in mccarthy there you're dealing with a dense mass that was alerted and you have sheet explosives so if there's something dangerous like that that's also going to alert on the city x and it didn't alert in this case now we don't know what an initiator is because we didn't have an evidentiary hearing so we don't know if it would have alerted but presumably if that's a danger and it's a hazard to air travel then it would be something the city to be looking forward you open the envelope to look for the initiator what what would or should she have done if she saw either a knife or box cutter or razor blades notwithstanding the fact that the machine did not identify that instance matter what should she have done well i think that's not this case i have to say because i couldn't have been box cutters or razor blade does a razor blades well those would have been on the city x that i know and that's my question razor blades are about the same hardness says maybe some credit cards of give or take and what if she saw s but it did not alert on the machine what if anything would she have been allowed to do while i actually don't know fraser plays or something you're allowed to carry on carry on like you're not answering the question like it's what my point is i don't know if razor blades are something dangerous that carry razor blades in their carry on luggage and i don't know the answer to that then i guess that's something contraband and if they're not for their questions i like to reserve my twenty seconds thank you put a minute on the clock when you come back please the court david ryan on behalf of the united states in the context of an administrator's search at the airport unlike a search pursuant to a warrant which would limit the scope of the search to the items identified or listed in the warrant the scope of the administrative search is limited to the point where as this court held in mccarthy quote the screener was convinced the bag posed no threat to airline safety and if that limited just his luggage went through the x ray and the magnetometer and there was no alert for either the passenger or the back but because the passenger didn't have an id he was subject to secondary screening of both himself and the bag and agents wanted and then felt and found an item in his pocket they the court held her out to pat him on and then pat down and then force him to take out that item and then in fact force him to unwrap it finding that it think she must have concluded you know there's there's nothing in the thimble up that dangerous for a passenger to carry on the air or plea when she had time to she did not say that she did not specifically say she thought there was an explosive she did identify two potential hazards she thought might be the hard mass or within the cards which were an initiator or a detonator for an explosive device or a knife which of course i about it can be very thin you know we don't have the benefit of her state of mind but what assuming under this hypothetical what would be the situation she opens it up she sees identification cards she sees at a glance that the picture on the card is not that person and she knows that the machine has alerted her to potential explosives and she now sees that this person is carrying false identification or might be if she then allowed to look more thoroughly at those cards to really confirm her initial suspicion is a false identification because if it is that might give her more grounds to be more concerned to look for explosives for someone who's carrying false identification am i wrong in that analysis is not precluded by existing lancer could president we're not but what this court has held is that if the asian has a secondary motive at the same time she's conducting a search for hazardous materials to confirm her suspicion that the items are contraband or false i d s that secondary motive does not invalidate the administrative search however it is correct that if the search could not have been for the purpose at all of locating hazardous materials no she cannot continue to search just you can just to confirm that than evidence or here so the question the burden for the defendant was to put proffer facts that put a genuine question as to the officers consistent statement that the reason she flipped through or at least through the cards was to look for hazardous material so the officer provided that declaration and the letter non evidence that she has to present in order to get an evidentiary hearing evidence a pretext right there could be any number of ways she could attempt to cast doubt on the officers credibility of the credibility well that's magic that is the point that i was really going to pretax could be developed through cross examination couldn't it so i think the burden however i think is to show some that long to see that this is not the instigation device or initiation device or explosives i think the district court was within its discretion of course this decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion how long would it have about a second or a little more than a second each time you're leafing through each card to see if there's anything in between the cards so the question i think for this court is whether the district court abused its discretion over all for even the fifteen second that's the myth is that like time by the  her looking at the individual card that's the totality of releasing the first time correct it is after that fifteen second search she closed the on the look which by the way was unsealed when she picked it up she closed the on below and goes off  screen and the undisputed facts before the district court were that at that point she called for a supervisor because she believed she found contraband and by policy was required to stop until from a second not to be on below opening it taking the stuff out of leafing through  closing and that's when the fifteen seconds and it correct don't long time fifteen seconds so i think now you're arguing so i think the question for this court is whether the district court decision or conclusion that it was not so long to raise a doubt as to the plaza ability or credibility of the officer statement whether that conclusion by the district court was illogical or implausible or not supported by inferences from the record in the q can you give me a staycation of a case that required only when a defendant quote makes an offer of proof sufficiently definite specific detail and non conjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact are in question and that hearing and what content in the context of a suppression motion in the same context as we have here and i would point out that here one of the ways that a defendant could that in this case the defendant could have raised a question is by submitting as required under the local rules a declaration setting forth the facts that she believes support her motion the defendant was there and have the defendant seen anything in the officers declaration as is raised on appeal that she thought was inconsistent with the video or with her memory the defendant was in perfect position to put out a declaration saying that's not how she remembers the facts but that wasn't done so there were no facts this beauty before the district court that would have given a question as to the officers credibility or the possibility of her statement that there could be hazards inside the envelope particularly in light of this court's recognition that hazardous materials be they not sheet explosives or other items can be thin unsealed among laugh pieces of paper there's very briefly government council person for the i carry a cow case in which there was a further search but in that case the defendant was identified because he didn't have id on his cards it was identified that he had no idea he was subject to a further search mccarty the government counsel said that the court approved leaving and coming but what happened in mccarthy was that the mccarthy says is that where the c t s alarms on a dense mass and the screener opens the back to find a packet of photographs the thumbing through the cards the court has the video i recall that she actually pulled out a card or two to look at them more closely in the initial screening but the court has the video to look at that with respect to the evidentiary hearing the government counsel says that defendant didn't offer her own declaration but in fact the government put in the video which contradicted in the respects identified in our brief the things said by the by the agent and therefore there was a dispute regarding what actually happened that day and if there are no further