In United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 22 year old Mendenhall arrived in Detroit on a flight from Los Angeles. Because she exhibited behavior that fit the profile of a drug courier, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents approached her and asked to see her identification and airline ticket. The names on the driver's license and airline ticket she produced did not match, so the agents asked her to accompany them to the airport DEA office for further questioning. She agreed to do so. While at the office, an agent asked her if she would allow a search of her person and her bag, to which she responded, "Go ahead." (Id. at p. 548.) During the search, agents found two packages of heroin, and Mendenhall was arrested. (Id. at p. 549.) The United States Supreme Court found that this was a consensual encounter and search. The Court stated, "We conclude that a person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." (United States v. Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. at p. 554.) The Court noted certain facts that supported its determination that no seizure had occurred: the events took place in the public airport concourse, the agents did not summon the respondent to their presence but approached her and identified themselves as federal agents, and the agents requested but did not demand to see Mendenhall's ticket and identification. The Court held, "Such conduct without more, did not amount to an intrusion upon any constitutionally protected interest. The respondent was not seized simply by reason of the fact that the agents approached her, asked her if she would show them her ticket and identification, and posed to her a few questions. Nor was it enough to establish a seizure that the person asking the questions was a law enforcement official. In short, nothing in the record suggests that the respondent had any objective reason to believe that she was not free to end the conversation in the concourse and proceed on her way, and for that reason we conclude that the agents' initial approach to her was not a seizure." (Id. at p. 555.) The United States Supreme Court held that a person has been seized when an officer restrains that person's movement by physical force or a show of authority. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 100 S. Ct. 1870. Further, the Court held: "A person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509, 100 S. Ct. at 1877. The Court noted that "examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person." (Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. 544, 554-555.) A person is "seized" only when his freedom of movement is restrained by physical force or a show of authority. "Only when such restraint is imposed is there any foundation whatever for invoking constitutional safeguards." (Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. 544, 553.)