aircraft.” Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 515 F.Supp.2d 984, 993 (D.Minn.2007) (citing Cassidy v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir.2006) (“[S]ociety has long accepted a heightened level of security and privacy intrusion with regard to air travel.”)). Certainly, the agents could have engaged the plaintiffs in consensual conversation. See Royer, 460 U.S. at 497-98, 103 S.Ct. 1319 (“[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual ... in [a] public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.”); United States v. Lee, 916 F.2d 814, 816-19 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). For aught that appears on the present record,
holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding the fourth amendment is not implicated in a policecitizen encounter where law enforcement officers approach someone in a public place and speak with him or ask the person to answer a few questions holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers approached defendant who was standing outside of an airport terminal and asked to see his airline ticket and identification holding that where officers approached a suspicious person in an airport terminal and with credentials displayed asked if they could speak with him the individual consented the officers told him that he was suspected of carrying contraband and he consequently allowed them to search his person the encounter did not implicate the fourth amendment holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions