(1998). Those cases had held that bus passengers do not feel free to disregard police officers’ requests to search absent “some positive indication that consent could have been refused.” Washington, supra, at 1357. We granted certiorari. 534 U. S. 1074 (2002). The respondents, we conclude, were not seized and their consent to the search was voluntary; and we reverse. II Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. See, e. g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497 (1983) (plurality opinion); see id., at 523, n. 3 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1984) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Even when law enforcement officers have no
holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court holding that such interactions in airports are the sort of consensual encounters that implicate no fourth amendment interest holding that the threat of air piracy justifies special fourth amendment considerations in airports akin to those at border crossings which allow warrantless searches in certain cases recognizing that once a completed traffic stop evolves into a consensual encounter there is no seizure and the fourth amendment is not implicated holding that fourth amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review because the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not relate to the accuracy of the factfinding process