" (Emphasis added.) United States v. Freymuller (N.D. Ill. 1983), 571 F. Supp. 61, 67. As Judge Grady pointed out, it is not unknown for the policemen to misrepresent the facts or "color" their testimony.
Most of the cited decisions simply find that reasonable suspicion existed under the facts of the case, and do not reach the issue of whether the drug sniff test would have been permissible in the absence of reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Alpert, 816 F.2d 958, 961 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Erwin, 803 F.2d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. West, 731 F.2d 90 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1188, 105 S.Ct. 956, 83 L.Ed.2d 963 (1985); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245, 104 S.Ct. 3523, 82 L.Ed.2d 830 (1984); United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22, 26-27 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Freymuller, 571 F. Supp. 61, 63 (N.D.Ill. 1983). Moreover, in each of the above cases (with two exceptions), the luggage subjected to the drug sniffing had been detained from the person or possession of the defendant.
Although the Van Leeuwen Court stated that Terry went further than the Court needed to go in Van Leeuwen, the Court nevertheless used the Terry language of "reasonable suspicion" when upholding the search.See, e.g., United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 855-56 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Alpert, 816 F.2d 958, 961 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Erwin 803 F.2d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. West, 731 F.2d 90 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1188, 105 S.Ct. 956, 83 L.Ed.2d 963 (1985); United States v. Beale, 731 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245, 104 S.Ct. 3523, 82 L.Ed.2d 830 (1984); United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22, 27 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Freymuller, 571 F. Supp. 61, 63 (N.D.Ill. 1983). But see United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1988) (expectation of privacy does not extend to airspace around luggage); United States v. Goldstein, 635 F.2d 356, 361-62 (5th Cir. 1981), reh'g denied, 640 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3111, 69 L.Ed.2d 972 (1981).
The court notes, however, that if the officers did claim that they had a tip suggesting Pirelli was carrying drugs, this fact would reinforce the conclusion that she was detained while outside the terminal. United States v. Freymuller, 571 F. Supp. 61, 65 (N.D.Ill., 1983); ("[t]urning the matter over in . . . the mind of any reasonable person, it would seem unlikely that the officers would let him simply walk off if indeed he met the description of a person carrying narcotics . . . it is difficult to see how [the defendant] could reasonably have thought he was free to leave."); United States v. Berry, 670 F.2d 583, 597 (5th Cir. 1982) ("Also, we must properly weigh the effect of statements by officers that individuals are suspected of smuggling drugs."); Borys, 766 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1985)