right that's very helpful to tell them they're searching the car which did not occur and well let's say that if you tell him that i mean date play along with me for a second ok they have the right to have a get out of the car right but they can they can get out the car and they have the right to tell him you're not going anywhere until we search the car yet they can tell them in fact they can do that make them stay there until they search the car and it will depend on what sort of search a car what how the manner in which they told him the until they're done with the search like him and security office until they don't get a search without that person believing that he is under arrest what he believes i don't know but they can bring him to the security office and make him stay there until they're done that's the difficulty with the time we come with from bravo the court there chose to a car we're going to search for bags we're going to do a search that takes several hours in this case because we have to call in a contractor to drop the gas tank that's the test that the court docket now the questions you're asking come from another perspective  alerted on the car well there's the elephant in the courtroom that the government didn't rely on below that the court specifically precluded the from from attempting to get into below i made the motions for dog i'm going to argue this case a particular way because i think it's it's not only easier for the court i think it it's better for this recurring facts situation that occurs at the border there's no doubt and then would basically have to concede that the physical evidence that w this case was in the civil the marijuana even apart from the routine on routine distinction of what the supreme court is going to do with me to terrorise on there was ample reasonable suspicion for this non routine gas tank search it really can't be contented so the physical evidence exists it's only after the discovery of the physical evidence that the agents go back a rest the defendant advised them of miranda rights and interview him even if you think and  don't at least six cases where this argument has been made before this court so published opinions for the times you are going to be made and we get back to the district court again week out same facts situation same arguments before the important this particular case because it would make this panel not have to decide the arrest attention issue to begin with because the government does not suggest that we can handcuff everybody comes across the border pill rather was my case and must have reasonable suspicion in order to handcuff somebody at the border i have a hard time conceptualizing the difference between handcuffing somebody and locking him in the security office i mean what's what's the difference  what's the difference which way i mean the government can do what you're it seems to me to argue or right either side argue that ok you can take him to the security office where he can't get out he's locked in they're walk from point a to point b in a brothel i think they were handcuffed between one and two minutes in this case they were handcuffed between two and three minutes and it's also not the case that the person wasn't told anything that he was let in the dark he was the sickly target he was going to hear co the the drug detected on certification memorandum that was provided in this case which was not provided to gain or ianto but it's not the case that we fully complied with all the discovery that would be required it was a very on offer and normally we would need to do that for the dog the reason why that would make some act like i realize you sort of preferred is i understand your argument that we say even if there's a problem with the initial handcuff important this case to remember that during the time that he's can't cut that two minutes the government doesn't talk to him we don't take any statements we don't find any evidence on his person i mean there was no connection really between the t what's the best thing you can say for your client to say why we shouldn't accept the government's argument that ok so it was wrong they found the drugs and at that point it becomes right something that would make the end of the jewels statements more an act of free will that's been repeated by this court whether it would make it more unconstrained independent decision to make statements probable cause the plea doesn't