cause in only a generic sense, and makes no attempt to distinguish the different standards. Under Learjet, this is improper. Also, the court did not treat the two cases separately. Thus, as with the factual background, we discuss the law and its application to the instant cases at some length because the Government and the court did not do so properly. A. Probable Cause for Seizure This court reviews a district court’s factual findings on suppression issues for clear error and the court’s conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Baro, 15 F.3d 563, 566 (6th Cir.1994). “Absent val id consent, the government must establish that [a] warrantless seizure was justified by probable cause.” Id. at 567 (citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983)) (<HOLDING>). Probable cause, in this context, “means a
holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further recognizing that a greater expectation of privacy exists in property that is carried on ones person so that probable cause is required holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury