In United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, three police officers boarded a bus "as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort." (Id. at p. 197.) One of the officers approached two passengers, showed his badge, and asked to search their bags. The luggage search revealed no drugs, but the officer, noticing that both men wore heavy jackets despite the warm weather, asked for and received consent to search their persons. Drugs were found on both men. The court rejected the defendants' contention that the circumstances were necessarily coercive and that their consent was thus involuntary. First, the court rejected the defendants' argument that the officer's display of his badge rendered the encounter coercive: "Officers are often required to wear uniforms and in many circumstances this is cause for assurance, not discomfort. Much the same can be said for wearing sidearms. That most law enforcement officers are armed is a fact well known to the public. The presence of a holstered firearm thus is unlikely to contribute to the coerciveness of the encounter absent active brandishing of the weapon." (Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at pp. 204-205.) Next, the court noted that absent an officer's command to consent or other indication that the person was not free to refuse, there was no basis for finding the defendants' consent to search involuntary: "Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels inferences of coercion." (Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 207.) In U.S. v. Drayton (2002) the Supreme Court found voluntary consent when police officers boarded a bus and requested consent to search persons and luggage. The high court noted that "there was no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice." In Drayton, an officer asked, "Mind if I check you?" to obtain consent to search Drayton. Drayton gave no verbal response, but lifted his hands about eight inches from his legs. (Id. at p. 199.) The officer conducted a patdown of Drayton's thighs and detected hard objects similar to those found on his traveling companion. He arrested Drayton and escorted him from the bus. (Ibid.) The high court concluded these actions were an implied consent to search. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and concluded the defendant was not detained when an officer wearing a concealed weapon boarded a bus, showed his badge to the defendant, questioned the defendant, arrested the defendant's companion, and then asked the defendant to consent to a patdown search. (United States v. Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at pp. 197-200.) The court gave little weight to the badge, the concealed weapon, and the failure to warn the defendant of his right to leave. (Id. at pp. 204-205.) The high court declined to require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate when requested to give their consent to searches, provided that a reasonable person would understand that he or she was free to refuse. The Supreme Court observed that it has rejected "the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search" and that "in a society based on law, the concept of agreement and consent should be given a weight and dignity of its own."