reasonable articulable suspicion before law en-foreement is permitted to detain or seize an item for purposes of investigation, i.e., to establish probable cause. United States v. Logan, 362 F.3d 530, 533 (8th Cir.2004). If officers do not have a reasonable articu-lable suspicion sufficient to justify detaining an item, any subsequent search of the item will be held unconstitutional even though probable cause was later established. Here, however, the government never established probable cause. Thus, even assuming the initial seizure was proper, the search was permissible only if Loos and Escobar freely and voluntarily consented. See United States v. Cedano-Medina, 366 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 356-57, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)) (<HOLDING>). “Under the fourth and fourteenth amendments,
holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable holding that warrantless searches are reviewed de novo whereas searches conducted pursuant to a search warrant are reviewed under a less demanding standard holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home holding that bodycavity searches of prisoners are not unreasonable holding strip searches conducted in the station house without reasonable suspicion that minor offenders had possession of contraband are unreasonable and violate the fourth amendment