Little Rock. These inconsistencies justified Pulliam’s further detention while Byrd continued to investigate. See id. After Byrd questioned Pulliam and his passenger and returned Pulliam’s license and registration, Byrd asked Pulliam for permission to search his car. The issue is whether Pulliam’s consent to the search was consensual. If the search and Pul-liam’s decision to remain with Byrd were consensual, then there was no Fourth Amendment violation. But if a reasonable person would not have believed himself free to leave, then the search was not consensual. See Beck, 140 F.3d at 1135. Despite the inconsistencies in the stories of Pulliam and his passenger, Byrd had no probable cause to think Pulliam was carrying drugs. See United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 199 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, unless the search was consensual it was
holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics holding that inconsistent answers about ownership of the vehicle and travel itinerary were not enough to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was trafficking in drugs holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer