Court Opinion

ID: 9486934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:04:21.975702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:01.177915
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
This appeal presents two discrete Fourth Amendment issues. They are both close but, with all respect, I believe that the majority has gotten them both wrong. First, I believe that the facts taken as a whole show that a reasonable person in defendant Kim’s position would not have felt free to terminate the encounter and hence that there was a seizure. More specifically, a seizure occurred because Agent Small confronted Kim in a non-public part of the train, blocked Kim’s exit from the roomette, asked Kim focused and incriminating questions, and never advised Kim that he had a right to terminate the encounter. As I see it, at the time Small asked Kim whether he had drugs in his luggage, Small had seized him. And since Small had no reasonable suspicion at the time he detained Kim, the consent Kim gave to search his luggage was involuntary. Second, I think that even if the majority is right that Small had not seized Kim and that Kim’s consent to the search of his luggage was thus voluntary, Small exceeded the scope of Kim’s consent when he opened one of the sealed Naturade All-Natural Vegetable Protein canisters he found in Kim’s luggage. I would therefore hold that the motion to suppress should have been granted and that the convictions should be overturned.
I. THE SEIZURE
I agree with the majority that the seizure question in this case falls under the rule of Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), which tells us that a person has been seized if, under the totality of the circumstances, a “reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” 501 U.S. at 436-37, 111 S.Ct. at 2387.1 A review of the circumstances surrounding *962the encounter between Small and Kim, however, shows that a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the encounter.
To begin with, the encounter occurred in a train roomette, a non-public setting. The non-public nature of the setting is a factor that weighs in favor of a conclusion that a seizure occurred because police conduct in non-public areas tends to be more coercive. See United States v. Ward, 961 F.2d 1526, 1531 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that “whether an encounter occurs in the public view is particularly significant” to the question of whether a seizure occurred). See also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3149, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (expressly recognizing the importance of an encounter occurring in a public place).2
The district court’s finding that the setting was public was, in my opinion, clearly erroneous. Although someone renting a roomette probably does not have the same expectation of privacy as someone sitting in his or her home, a roomette passenger’s expectation of privacy is certainly much higher than a coach passenger’s. In my view, the privacy expectation is quite similar to that of an individual who has rented a hotel room, and it is well settled that a hotel room is a non-public place. See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 489-90, 84 S.Ct. 889, 893,11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) (according full Fourth Amendment protection to hotel guests); Eng Fung Jem v. United States, 281 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir.1960) (“The transience of appellant’s stay in the [hotel] room searched by the officers does not dilute the force of constitutional protection. The hotel room in question was appellant’s dwelling. That he lived there for but several days is of no consequence.”).
Moreover, Stoner has been extended beyond hotel rooms to cover other temporary *963dwelling places. See, e.g., United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir.1993) (tent pitched in public campground was non-public place entitled to same protection as a hotel room). Courts have also recognized higher expectations of privacy in private living quarters on ships. See United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 738 (9th Cir.1985) (“The private living quarters [of a ship] are at least analogous to a private dwelling. As a result, even in the context of a border search, the search of private living quarters on a ship should require something more than naked suspicion.”). These cases suggest that a place set aside for sleeping in private carries with it a much higher expectation of privacy and should be considered a non-public place. Of. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (“We are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings. It is for this reason that, although we may spend all day in public places, when we cannot sleep in our own home we seek out another private .place to sleep, whether it be a hotel room, or the home of a friend. Sock ety expects at least as much privacy in these places as in a telephone booth — ‘a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants’ expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable.’ ” (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 517, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J concurring))); United States v. Eagon, 707 F.2d 362, 366 (9th Cir.1982) (“Those living on their boats have a greater expectation of privacy at night.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 483, 78 L.Ed.2d 680 (1983). I believe that a train roomette, an enclosed cabin with a bed and a sink, is no less a temporary dwelling place than a pitched tent in a campground, a private berth on a ship, or a hotel room.
Of course a conductor can enter the roomette at different times during the trip. But the fact that a conductor may enter to check tickets or in ease of an emergency, and that an attendant may enter to make the bed and clean up the room the next morning, does not lower the expectation of privacy a passenger has in the roomette with respect to entries into the roomette for purposes totally unrelated to those duties of the train crew. The right of access to the hotel room by managers and housekeepers, for example, does not transform the hotel room into a public place. See Stoner, 376 U.S. at 489-90, 84 S.Ct. at 893 (noting that although a person engaging a hotel room gives permission to maids, janitors or repairmen to enter the room in the performance of their duties, such permission does not give police license to enter to search for incriminating evidence); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616, 81 S.Ct. 776, 780, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961) (explaining that although a landlord had actual authority to enter into a house to “view [a tenant’s] waste” and gave his permission to search, the police violated a tenant’s constitutional rights when they searched the tenant’s house since the search was unrelated to viewing waste). I see no reason why this principle should not apply with equal force in the train roomette setting.
It is also virtually undisputed that the roomette was a cramped and confined setting. The roomette, which was seven feet wide and less than four feet deep, was similar to a moderately sized walk-in closet. The only access to and from the roomette was through a door that was only two feet wide. The hallway outside the doorway was itself only two and a half feet wide. Such cramped confines increase the coercive nature of the encounter, máking it less likely that a reasonable person would feel free to terminate it. Cf. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 429, 111 S.Ct. at 2389 (“The cramped confines of a bus are one relevant factor that should be considered in evaluating whether a passenger’s consent is voluntary.”).
Making the encounter in the cramped and confined space even more coercive was the fact that Small blocked Kim’s only means of exit. Kim argues, and I agree, that the district court’s finding that Small did not block the doorway is clearly erroneous. Small claimed that he was kneeling five to six inches from the door during much of the encounter (the district court accepted this testimony, finding that he had been five inches from the door). For Kim to have terminated the encounter by leaving the roomette would have required him to vault *964over Small, through a two foot doorway into approximately 30 inches of landing space (really somewhat less because Small’s body would have occupied a considerable part of the hallway). I think it is inconceivable that a reasonable person would have felt free to ignore Small by passing over him into the narrow hallway where Small knelt during the encounter. Cf. United States v. Savage, 889 F.2d 1113, 1116 (D.C.Cir.1989) (stating that blocking the door would have been relevant to the question of seizure because it would have prevented the defendant from leaving the compartment).
Of course, it might be argued that Kim could have terminated the encounter simply by shutting the door. If so, it might not matter whether Small blocked Kim’s exit from the train. But I do not think a reasonable person would think they could terminate the encounter with the police - by slamming a door in the officer’s face. See Savage, 889 F.2d at 1116 (saying nothing about whether the defendant could shut the door). Indeed I am not sure that it matters much to the inquiry whether Kim had alternative methods of terminating the encounter other than exiting the train for the fact that Small may have left Kim a variety of ways of terminating the encounter does not mean that a reasonable person would have felt free to use them. For example, a seizure would certainly have occurred had Small entered into the roomette and shut the door behind him regardless of whether Kim could have terminated the encounter by some other means like telling Small to go away, or climbing out a window.
In any event, I do not believe that Kim could have shut the door during the encounter. The findings the district court made about the configuration of the train car, about the traffic passing up and down the hallway, and Small’s claim that he left room for the passengers walking up and down the hallway, make it virtually certain that Small leaned inside the room for important periods of time during the episode and thus prevented the door from being shut.
The majority tries to avoid this problem by stating that Small’s testimony that he “was not blocking the door” was uncontradicted. That assertion is simply incorrect. Both Youn and Kim testified that Small was leaning against the side of the doorway, indeed leaning against the door itself. Youn testified that Small was “definitely in the doorway” and Kim testified “He was kind of leaning through the doorway — not into the compartment. He was leaning on the side of the door.”
In my opinion, both Youn’s and Kim’s testimony that Small was leaning against the doorway throughout the encounter is inherently credible because: 1) leaning against the doorway would be the natural way to conduct a conversation with anyone sitting inside the roomette; 2) it would allow Small the ability to conceal the fact that he was passing things to Candelaria throughout the encounter; and 3) it would allow other passengers to pass freely down the hallway. By contrast, I believe Small’s testimony that he was five to six inches from the door is incredible because 1) if Small really had been five to six inches outside the roomette, there would not have been enough room for people to pass without at least acknowledging Small, and nowhere does the tape record an “excuse me” or similar statement by even a single passenger passing Small in the corridor,3 and 2) given the large amount of noise in the train at the time, it seems doubtful that Kim could have even heard Small’s “polite and conversational” voice had Small stayed five to six inches outside the roomette.
Not only did the encounter occur in a nonpublic, confined setting with Small blocking the only means of exit, but Small also asked *965Kim and Youn focussed and potentially incriminating questions. Small first asked them about their citizenship status. Apparently, the sight of two Asian men travelling to Philadelphia from Los Angeles made Small think that they might be illegal aliens, and no doubt his questions communicated these thoughts to Kim. He then asked them “[y]ou guys don’t have any drugs in your luggage today, do you?” By asking this after looking over their tickets twice and informing them that he was a DEA agent on the train looking for drug traffickers, Small communicated the message that Kim was a specific target of the agent’s investigation. At least two courts have found that a seizure occurred when an officer asked similar questions of a suspect. See United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182, 185 (8th Cir.1989) (seizure occurred as soon as an agent told the defendant that he was part of a narcotics unit and was trying to stop the flow of drugs through the St. Louis airport); United States v. Gonzales, 842 F.2d 748, 752 (5th Cir.1988) (seizure in an airport occurred when a DEA agent told the defendant that he was “working narcotics” and asked to look in the defendant’s bag), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hurtado, 905 F.2d 74 (5th Cir.1990).4
Furthermore, not only did the questioning seek to incriminate Kim, but the questions were also blunt and direct. Although the majority dismisses the importance of this fact by stating that Small’s tone was polite and conversational, that response misses the point. Bluntness and directness describe the type of questions asked, not the manner in which they were asked. See, e.g., Nunley, 873 F.2d at 184-85 (not even mentioning whether the officer’s tone was confrontational or rude to the defendant). Although the tone of the officer’s voice is relevant to the *966extent that a forceful tone of voice may make a reasonable person think that they must comply with the officer’s requests, see Savage, 889 F.2d at 1115 (D.C.Cir.1989), the lack of such a forceful tone does not entirely deprive blunt and direct questions of their coercive force. The questions Small asked Kim about citizenship and drug trafficking were as sharp and focussed as they could be under the circumstances, given that Small had absolutely no articulable suspicion that any crime had been committed, let alone that Kim had committed a crime.
Finally, it is undisputed that Small failed to advise Kim of his right to decline the agent’s requests or terminate the encounter. The majority dismisses this fact as unimportant stating that “[w]hile such advice may well be evidence of the consensual nature of an encounter following the advice, the absence of such advice does not necessarily eliminate the consensual nature of the encounter.” This statement is typical of the majority’s approach to this case. The majority examines each fact of the encounter in isolation and considers whether each fact, by itself, would have made a reasonable person believe he was not free to terminate the encounter. See Maj.Op. at 951-52 (“Nor do we believe a confined area in a train is inherently coercive.”); Maj.Op. at 952-53 (“we do not believe that Kim’s expectation of privacy [in the roomette] has any overriding importance in our analysis as to whether a seizure occurred”); Maj.Op. at 953 (“potentially incriminating questions do not by themselves make an encounter coercive”) (emphases supplied).
The clear implication of the majority’s analysis in this case is that, unless the defendant can come forward with a piece of evidence that would make the encounter a per se seizure, the defendant will not be able to show that there was a seizure. In my opinion, such an approach transforms the “totality of the circumstances” analysis of Bostick into a mirror image of the per se approach rejected in Bostick. Bostick teaches that a court must consider all of the evidence in combination to determine whether the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter. The question whether one factor does or does not necessarily create a seizure is simply no longer relevant after Bostick.
Perhaps as a result of this failure to implement the Bostick standard, the majority fails to recognize that although Small’s failure to advise Kim that he had a right to terminate the encounter may not by itself create a seizure, it nevertheless could tip the balance under a true totality of the circumstances analysis. This is particularly true in this case because the circumstances are otherwise so similar to Bostick. Of critical, and perhaps decisive, importance in Bostick was the fact that the two police officers questioning Bostick on the bus had “specifically advised Bostick that he had the right to refuse consent.” 501 U.S. at 432, 438, 111 S.Ct. at 2385, 2388. If we believe that Bostick represents a case in which the actions of the police were almost coercive enough to amount to a seizure, the absence of such a warning in a situation similar to that in Bostick should be enough to tip the balance.
In sum, given that the setting was nonpublic and that Small was asking Kim and Youn incriminating questions while blocking the door to the roomette, Small’s failure to advise Kim that he could terminate the encounter made the encounter a seizure. I believe that no reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter under such circumstances.5
*967II. THE SCOPE OF CONSENT
Even if Small did not seize Kim prior to his search of the luggage, Small’s search of the sealed vegetable protein canisters he found within the luggage violated the Fourth Amendment because it exceeded the scope of the consent.6 As the majority mentions, Small asked to search Kim’s bag and Kim said he could. Small then saw six metal-lidded, factory-sealed canisters labelled “Na-turade All-Natural Vegetable Protein.” Without asking Kim’s permission, and after Kim told Small that they were meant to be a present, Small opened the factory seal and handed the canister to Candelaria asking him to poke around inside the can to see what he could find. The question is whether Small reasonably believed that Kim’s consent to search his luggage gave Small permission to open the canisters. The majority holds that it did. I disagree.
We know from Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991), that the scope of a search is defined objectively and that under such an approach a suspect’s general consent to search a car includes consent to search a folded paper bag lying on the floor of the car. 500 U.S. at 251-52, 111 S.Ct. at 1804. But we also know that consent to search a larger container does not include consent to search all smaller containers inside. Id. As Jimeno itself stated, “[i]t is very likely unreasonable to think that a suspect, by consenting to the search of his trunk,, has agreed to the breaking open of a locked briefcase within the trunk.” Id. (citing State v. Wells, 589 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989)). Each officer in Jimeno, Wells, and this case requested consent to search for narcotics; thus the defendant in each case consented under similar contexts, making the scope of their consent similar. Hence the question ultimately posed by this case is whether the factory sealed canister is more like a locked briefcase or a folded paper bag.7
The majority’s entire discussion of this question is as follows: “cans such as found in the case sub judice are not similar to locked briefcases.” That is simply a conclusion. There is no discussion of the relevant differences between the two objects for purposes of the reasonable scope of a consent to search. In my opinion, the difference between the folded paper bag in Jimeno and the locked briefcase in Wells has to do with the owner’s greater expectation of privacy in the contents of the briefcase than in a paper bag, and in the owner’s greater property interest in not having the lock on his briefcase broken than in not having his paper bag opened.
I believe, however, that a heightened expectation of privacy can be- evidenced by something other than a lock — gift-wrapping around a package, for example. Of course a *968sealed package like a can of food or a box with plastic shrink-wrap around it does not really evidence a strong privacy interest. Labels on products will often display prominently the contents of a package. This is where the second distinction becomes important, however. Consent to search property cannot reasonably be construed to mean consent to damage the property. There is a strong property interest in sealed packages, and opening them often damages the value of that interest.
In my opinion, the Naturade All-Natural Vegetable Protein canister Small took from Kim’s luggage was no different than a can of tuna fish, a carton of milk, or a locked briefcase, all of which would be seriously damaged once opened. Once the seal was broken, the canister simply would not be able to keep its contents free from spoilage to the same extent it could before. And if it was meant to be a gift, as Kim told Small before he opened the lid, it would not be much good once opened. I believe it to be unreasonable for a police officer to think that consent to search luggage includes consent to open up a sealed package, particularly one that bears no visible evidence of tampering and which the officer has been told is going to be used as a gift.
Although the majority cites United States v. Springs, 936 F.2d 1330, 1334-35 (D.C.Cir.1991), to support its conclusion that an officer can break into sealed containers during a consensual search, I do not believe Springs stands for this proposition. In Springs, although the baby powder container had a lid (which the majority somewhat disingenuously calls a “seal”), there was no evidence in the opinion that the container was sealed in the sense that it had a factory vacuum seal covering its opening. In fact, the baby powder container had pry marks on it suggesting that someone had already opened the container. Id. at 1332. Thus Springs really only holds that a police officer can remove the lid of an obviously already opened container when he is looking for drugs.
Springs reached its conclusion in part by distinguishing the baby powder container from the locked briefcase discussed in .lime-ño on two grounds: 1) the baby powder container did not have a key, and 2) opening the baby powder container would not render it useless. For the reasons discussed above, neither distinction forecloses Fourth Amendment protection in this case. First, as was mentioned above, although the locked nature of the briefcase is strong evidence of the owner’s intent to keep its contents private, it does not follow that a key or lock is necessary for a box or container to be outside the scope of a consensual search of this kind. Second, Springs’ discussion of “useless[ness]” suggests agreement with the principle that consent does not reasonably extend to searches that will physically damage the property being searched. As discussed above, when applied to the facts of this case, this principle suggests that Small exceeded the scope of Kim’s consent.
It is becoming a shibboleth in this area of the law for courts to say that drugs are usually not scattered loosely throughout larger containers. See, e.g., Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251-52, 111 S.Ct. at 1804; Springs, 936 F.2d at 1334-35. I fully concede that it is appropriate for a police officer to look at smaller containers found in luggage that may possibly contain drugs. But once the police officer has looked at the item and it is either wrapped or sealed, it is unreasonable for the police officer to think that the consent to search the luggage gives him license to damage the item by opening it without asking permission.8
I respectfully dissent.

. The encounter between Kim and Small occurred in a sleeper car on an AMTRAK train called the "Southwest Chief," which travels between Los Angeles and Chicago. Agent Small (along with Officer Candelaria) has become something of a legend among the district judges *962in New Mexico and the appellate judges in the Tenth Circuit. His drug interdiction efforts at the Albuquerque train station have singlehandedly spawned an entire jurisprudence about searches and seizures on trains. No fewer than nine published opinions in that circuit, including an en banc opinion, grapple with the Fourth Amendment issues raised by his actions. See United States v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir.1994) (en banc ); United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Bloom, 975 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Ward, 961 F.2d 1526 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Scales, 903 F.2d 765 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Miller, 811 F.Supp. 1485 (D.N.M.1993); United States v. Armijo, 781 F.Supp. 1551 (D.N.M.1991).
Based on these reported cases, Small’s method of operation is distinctive and apparently always essentially the same. Before the "Southwest Chief” stops in Albuquerque during its run between Los Angeles and Chicago, he reviews the train manifest looking for passengers travelling in sleeping cars on one-way tickets paid for with cash. When he finds such a passenger, he knocks on the passenger's roomette door, stands in the doorway and begins a carefully constructed inquisition that quickly leads to the question "Would you voluntarily consent for me to search.” He makes no threats. His tone is polite and conversational. He does not show a gun. He behaves much like a door-to-door salesman who can keep his foot in the door and the prospect talking until he has made a sale (or, in Small's business, an arrest). He is an enormously capable and highly successful police officer. But his arrests have not always been upheld against Fourth Amendment challenge and, at all events, we must analyze the facts of this case on their own.

. The majority opinion in the recent Tenth Circuit en banc case discussing Small, United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir.1994) {en banc), questioned the assumption that a non-public encounter makes the police conduct more coercive than when it occurs in a public setting. Id. at 1504 & n. 5. It stated, not unpersuasively, that many people may in fact feel more coerced when they are confronted in a public setting and may submit to police requests because they do not want to make a spectacle of themselves. Id.
Although the Little majority's view on this question has intuitive appeal, it does not appear to be in accord with the view of the Supreme Court. As Judge Logan pointed out in dissent in Little, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated in the context of giving Miranda warnings that public settings are inherently less coercive. Little, 18 F.3d at 1511 (Logan, J. dissenting) (quoting Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 438, 104 S.Ct. at 3149). In Berkemer, the Supreme Court said:
[t]he typical traffic stop is public, at least to some degree. Passersby, on foot or in other cars, witness the interaction of officer and motorist. This exposure to public view both reduces the ability of an unscrupulous policemen to use illegitimate means to elicit self-incriminating statements and diminishes the motorists fear that, if he does not cooperate, he will be subjected to abuse.
468 U.S. at 438, 104 S.Ct. at 3149. Until the Supreme Court states otherwise, therefore, we must operate under the assumption that encounters with the police in non-public settings are inherently more coercive.

. If he had been kneeling, as Small testified he had been, his legs would have stuck out approximately 18 inches into the hallway. That would have left other people in the corridor with less than 12 inches to pass without touching Small. And if he had been five to six inches from the doorway, he would have left other passengers with only six to seven inches to pass. Again it is likely that they would have had to step over at least some part of Small’s body when they passed Kim’s roomette and there is nothing on the tape indicating in any way that they did. Unless people on the train from Los Angeles have worse manners than average people, or are more nimble and svelte,, one would have expected something on the tape where the passing passengers acknowledged Small's presence. There is nothing of the kind on the tape.

. Both Nunley and Gonzales were airport cases. In each case, the encounter occurred in an airport terminal, a non-cramped and public place where it would have been quite easy for the defendant to walk away. They are therefore much weaker cases than this one, where similar questions were asked to a defendant who was trapped in the confined space of the roomette. As I see it, if it is true that a seizure occurred where similar questions were asked to a defendant in a public setting, then it must be the case that a seizure would have occurred where such questions were asked in a cramped and confined setting.
The majority comments in a footnote that "the dissent has cited to several cases decided in or before 1990 prior to Bostick (1991) for a proposition contrary to the Bostick language [that police may ask potentially incriminating questions without converting an encounter into a seizure]. Those cases also conflicted with Little." Maj.Op. at 954 n. 6. I see no conflict between Bostick and either Nunley or Gonzales. Both cases employ the same totality of the circumstances approach endorsed in Bostick. Nunley, 873 F.2d at 185; Gonzales, 842 F.2d at 748. Apparently the majority believes that the language from the Bos-tick case makes the question whether focused and incriminating questions were asked irrelevant to the totality of the circumstances inquiry. I see nothing in the language of Bostick that leads to such a conclusion. Bostick merely says that police may approach a person and ask potentially incriminating questions without necessarily converting the encounter into a seizure. It does not follow from such a proposition that asking incriminating questions is irrelevant to the question of whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter.
Indeed, a number of post-Bostick cases recognize that asking incriminating questions — like asking a person whether he or she is carrying drugs — is relevant to the question whether a person was seized. See, e.g., United States v. McCarthur, 6 F.3d 1270, 1276 (7th Cir.1993) (stating that one relevant consideration is whether the police indicate through their questioning that the defendants were a specific target, like asking whether they are carrying drugs); United States v. Adebayo, 985 F.2d 1333, 1338 (7th Cir.1993) (discussing as relevant to the seizure analysis whether the police asked the defendant whether he was carrying drugs, and explaining United States v. Borys, 766 F.2d 304 (7th Cir.1985), which held that it is relevant to the seizure question whether the officer informs an individual that he is conducting a drug investigation and then asks the individual if he has drugs in his possession), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2947, 124 L.Ed.2d 695 (1993); United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 122-23 (4th Cir.1991) (persistent questioning, even when polite, by itself, created a seizure). Wilson is particularly noteworthy because in that case there were no coercive elements of the encounter other than the questioning of the police. The panel in that case could not have reached its result if asking incriminating questions were irrelevant to the inquiry.
Thus the majority's claim that the dissent ignores Bostick is misplaced. Properly construed, Bostick allows courts to consider the incriminating nature of the questioning as one part of the totality of the circumstances. And this conclusion is fully consistent with post-Bostick case law.

. Of course, Small's seizure of Kim would not violate the Fourth Amendment if he had reasonable suspicion to detain him. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Small did not, however, have reasonable suspicion. At the time Small asked Kim whether he had drugs in his luggage (the time that I believe the seizure occurred because by this time the encounter was not only in a cramped, non-public space, but had involved focused and incriminating questioning), Small knew the following facts: 1) Kim and Youn had purchased one-way tickets; 2) the tickets were purchased for cash; 3) they had upgraded to a sleeper car en route from Los Angeles; 4) they were travelling to Philadelphia; 5) Kim was a naturalized citizen born in Korea; 6) Youn was in the U.S. Marines; 7) Youn's ticket was in the name of "Terry Park” (there is no evidence that Small knew that this was an alias at the time of the encounter, however); and (8) the train manifest had the name "Wonz” assigned to the sleep*967er. These facts are all consistent with innocent travel, and they fall woefully short of the particularized suspicion sufficient to justify a Terry stop. Compare United States v. Coggins, 986 F.2d 651 (3d Cir.1993) (reasonable suspicion exists when the defendant matched the standard profile for drug couriers, was using a false name, rented a car for only a few hours before returning it, appeared nervous and highly agitated, and was traveling with two recognized drug traffickers).

. The majority addresses the question whether Kim voluntarily consented to Small's search of his luggage and concludes that Kim did so consent. It then concludes that "the district court was correct in finding that Kim voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage.” I am not entirely sure why the majority has chosen to undertake this particular consent analysis. Kim apparently concedes that, absent a seizure, his consent to search the luggage (though not the sealed container) was voluntarily given. Of course, if there was an improper seizure, Kim's consent to the search of the luggage pursuant to that improper seizure was involuntary, absent a break in the causal chain. Apparently, the majority concedes that there was no break in causation between Small's initial encounter with Kim and his search of the bag. Thus, if the seizure was improper, the fruits of the search should have been suppressed.

. The majority frames the issue as a matter of whether or not the canisters reasonably could have contained drugs. It frames the issue in this way because it abstracts from Jimeno the proposition that when an officer requests permission to search for drugs and such permission is given, "the permission extends to any items within that area that a reasonable person would believe to contain drugs.” Such a reading of Jimeno cannot be right. Jimeno clearly states that it would have been "unreasonable” to think that a suspect consents to the search of a locked briefcase inside a car trunk when he consents to search of the trunk. Yet it certainly is reasonable to think that a locked suitcase in those circumstances contains drugs.

. Moreover, before Small opened the canister, Youn said, "[i]ts closed.” I believe that a reasonable officer would take that to mean that he should not open the container. The majority attempts to wave this problem away in part by stating that Youn’s statement did not mean that Small should not open the canister but rather that he simply did not know what was in the canister. According to the majority, "Youn's answer was another way of saying, '1 don't know *969because it is closed.’ ” But Youn did not say “I don’t know because it is closed.” He said, “It's closed.”