you don’t mind if I search it then, right?” It appears from the recording and testimony that the officer did not wait for a response to this question before opening the ear door, and no response was given. Officer O’Connor looked through the window before opening the door and saw a bulge under the floor mat which he suspected to be guns or drugs. The car door apparently was not locked. The officer merely used the key to see that it fit which confirmed his suspicion that the car belonged to Avent. The officer found a gun and heroin under the floor mat and placed Avent under arrest. ANALYSIS Avent initially consented to talk with the officers, such that the initial questioning did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (<HOLDING>). It also appears that Avent initially
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 unless the law enforcement officers show of authority succeeds in restraining a person the person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that an encounter was consensual where the defendant was comfortable during the encounter chose not to leave and acquiesced to the officers request to answer questions 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 that one must look to circumstances of encounter to determine whether detention under fourth amendment took place