In Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, two undercover narcotics agents working at the Miami airport approached an individual fitting a drug courier profile as he walked along the concourse toward the airline boarding area. The officers identified themselves as policemen working out of the sheriff's office and asked Royer if he had a moment to speak with them. He said "Yes." At the officers' request, Royer produced his airline ticket and driver's license, which turned out to be in different names. When the officers asked about the discrepancy, Royer became noticeably more nervous, and the officers then informed him "that they were in fact narcotics investigators and that they had reason to suspect him of transporting narcotics." (Id. at p. 494.) At that point, the officers, who still had Royer's airline ticket and identification, asked him to accompany them to a room adjacent to the concourse, about 40 feet away, where they eventually found drugs in a consent search of his luggage. In concluding that Royer had been detained by the time he consented to a search of his luggage, the court offered the following analysis: "Asking for and examining Royer's ticket and his driver's license were no doubt permissible in themselves, but when the officers identified themselves as narcotics agents, told Royer that he was suspected of transporting narcotics, and asked him to accompany them to the police room, while retaining his ticket and driver's license and without indicating in any way that he was free to depart, Royer was effectively seized for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. These circumstances surely amount to a show of official authority such that 'a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.'" (Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at pp. 501-502 (plur. opn. of White, J.) The Supreme Court explained: "Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. If there is no detention--no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment--then no constitutional rights have been infringed." (Id. at pp. 497-498.)