taking the door off anyway well there's a couple of safety aspects the first sixty aspect is that in this particular case the electrical panel was actually ripped out of the car you can actually see that on governments exhibit two at the supplemental accepts  that not only had i think three hundred forty eight cars fans had their gas tanks disassembled reassembled and travelled into the united states without incident but that the search in that particular case was actually not destructive to the car defense of what they did is a very carefully lifted off a door panel and then one done what we see are pictures of a car that's been substantially trashed including exterior as order indicate that in order to remove the door panel they did have to disrupt the electrical panel of the car and take it out so i would argue that the search became something that required reasonable suspicion at the time that that i'm government's exhibit two what am i supposed to see there that i don't know what i'm looking at the government's exhibit number two shows the door quote after the panel was removed according to inspector chad at the suppression hearing and what that shows is that the it there's probable cause out the gazoo to investigate so the only thing we're really looking at here is whether an initial look at the panel was affected the safety or off orations of the vehicle in some particularly offensive way so as to run afoul of what the supreme court and  honor in this case we don't know unfortunately when the damage or destruction to the car occurred or whether it actually occurred during the process of prying open a door and i do know is that from the evidence rehearing that was h d that exhibit one indicates that the panel before the officer took anything off into shows that afterwords and he stated that the handlebars removed using a screwdriver is the way i just so that if nothing is found it can be put back together without damage and given an opportunity to cross examine that or pursue that line of questioning further hernandez didn't do that so that's what the beyond it and so he was on the stand the judge said you can ask him old questions you want following up on how he removed the panel right but at that point he had already ruled  if there is something to be tried in based upon the that's showing that's neat how are we supposed to make to infer that you could possibly i think is at page eighty six of the e r he said and i'm quoting and the inspector said quote i pulled the panel in order that you know because i was just checking and when i saw the packages when i turned out the panel and i tested one package does that make any difference well the gas tank and then find the marijuana you don't have to see the marijuana for well because in this case there was he had to take apart the panel in order to see the packages in that case and in the case of the gas tank testify very clearly what kind of force was used in removing the panel initially and he responded initially just the way that we do no damage to the vehicle we remove an easy way that if we do not harm anything we can put it back together without damage very gently  to all kinds of hypotheticals and where we know where to draw the line but the bottom line is on these particular facts there's nothing particularly offensive about this search merle let me let me probe that the photographs which show the total damage to the car the last of the damage is one factor but the impairment of operation the impairment of the safety or to other on where you think that this car was drivable from after i'm out of my hypothetical is because i don't know that the amount of damage done to this car is reflected in the found the marijuana ultimately was to destroy the car then they found at the end they found it i just want to because you know that was my point i took which you started with quite properly the agent said we take it apart very isn't just ok we prior to this one and then we pry this one and then we pull the glove compartment out and then we go into the trunk and we rip up and compartments and then when we're all done we finally found it and the car has been destroyed now i you know it's an open question for me in any event as to whether safety is the only constraint on the scope of that one way or another i'm just trying to understand what the government is arguing for are photographs in this case which suggest that the totality of the investigation the physical invasion of this car was substantial but i don't know from the record when  you know we're in the process that move from borders search suspicion which basically is the cards there to where even the government would argue it has to have reasonable suspicion to start open areas that haven't been filled in by your own case with the spare tire wear is there any line and so that's what we're wrestling with right and i know it and it's always hard to set these lines i just in this case believe that page eighty nine of the excerpts of record while there is a question about the timing of the destruction and to the door panels and the destruction of the electrical panels and i understand your honour's position on that that is precisely why we needed a full inquiry into the degree of damage and destruction of the car at the time that the search was conducted i don't agree to the inspectors can justify that he didn't even know that that was even potentially a factor in this case and as far as the container search exception is concerned i know that the government has brought up that carol and ross in particular justify the search in