Gillis, J.
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(c); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(c), and, following a preliminary examination, was bound over for trial. Thereafter, defendant moved to suppress the evidence against him. Following a hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court suppressed the evidence and entered an order dismissing this [514]*514case. The prosecutor now appeals as of right, claiming defendant had no standing to contest the search of his suitcases. We agree, and reverse.
At defendant’s preliminary examination, Mawan Taleb, a member of the Wayne County Sheriffs Department, assigned to the DEA Task Force at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, testified that, on January 6, 1990, he was monitoring incoming passengers on a flight from Phoenix, Arizona, for suspected drug carriers. Taleb observed defendant get off the plane, noticed him turn his head and look behind him several times, and observed the small gym bag defendant was carrying. Defendant then proceeded to the baggage carousel. Taleb continued to observe defendant, who appeared to be looking around. On the basis of defendant’s behavior, Taleb identified himself to defendant, showed defendant his badge, and asked to speak with him.
Taleb requested that defendant show him his airline ticket. The ticket bore the name Aross and had two baggage checks on it. Taleb noted the numbers on the baggage checks and returned the ticket to defendant. Taleb asked to see defendant’s identification, but defendant claimed that he did not have any identification. However, defendant stated his name, date of birth, and address in Tucson, Arizona.
Taleb asked defendant why he was not flying under his own name, and defendant stated that a friend had purchased the ticket for him. In response to further questioning, defendant stated that he was going to stay with his father in Toledo, Ohio.
Defendant then consented to Taleb’s request to search defendant and his gym bag for narcotics. The gym bag bore the name Fredo. When Taleb’s [515]*515search of defendant and the gym bag uncovered no narcotics, Taleb asked defendant if he could search his checked bags, and defendant said no. Taleb then told defendant that he was going to detain his bags and that he had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was carrying narcotics. At this point, defendant was not under arrest.
At this point, there were only a few bags left on the luggage carousel. Two other police officers, Officer Mary Taylor and Officer Robert Linderman, arrived on the scene. Officer Linderman was accompanied by a narcotics-detection dog. The officers were informed of defendant’s baggage claim numbers.
Defendant then asked Taleb if he could make a telephone call, and Taleb responded that he was not under arrest and that he could do whatever he wanted. Defendant made a telephone call, then returned to search for his bags. Defendant told officer Taylor that he had tweed Jordache bags, but there were no bags matching that description on the carousel. The officers then retrieved the luggage matching the claim check numbers attached to defendant’s ticket. The claim checks on these bags, like defendant’s carry-on gym bag, bore the name Fredo.
At this point, Officer Linderman had the narcotics-detection dog sniff the bags. The officers received a positive response from the dog, and defendant was placed under arrest. Taleb then asked defendant for the claim check stubs to the bags. Defendant gave Taleb the ticket envelope, but the claim checks were not in it. Defendant claimed not to know where they were. Further, defendant denied ownership of the retrieved bags. The officers then opened the suitcases and found twenty-five pounds of marijuana in each suitcase. Taleb never obtained a search warrant to search the [516]*516luggage because he felt that defendant had abandoned the bags.
During cross-examination, Taleb stated that he became suspicious of defendant because defendant’s plane came from a "source” city, defendant repeatedly looked over his shoulder, and the gym bag defendant was carrying appeared to be lightweight, which indicated to Taleb that defendant would not be staying in the area long. Taleb’s suspicions were further aroused when he determined that defendant’s name was different than the name on his airline ticket and that defendant’s ticket had been paid for in cash.
On appeal, the people argue that defendant had no standing to object to the search of the suitcases because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the suitcases. Defendant argues that the luggage was not abandoned, and, therefore, he had standing to challenge the legality of the seizure.
A person can abandon an object and thus deprive himself of standing to challenge the validity of the seizure of the object. People v Mamon, 435 Mich 1, 6; 457 NW2d 623 (1990). If a person abandons an object, he has no justifiable expectation of privacy in the object, and any police confiscation of the object is not a seizure in the constitutional sense. People v Boykin, 119 Mich App 763, 766; 327 NW2d 351 (1982). However, coercive police activity resulting in an abandonment serves to nullify any claim of abandonment. People v Shabaz, 424 Mich 42, 66; 378 NW2d 451 (1985).
After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that defendant abandoned his luggage and, therefore, did not have standing to challenge the seizure of the bags. Defendant advised Officer Taleb that he had tweed Jordache bags. No bags [517]*517matching defendant’s description of his luggage were found on the baggage carousel. However, bags with numbers matching the numbers on defendant’s baggage checks were found on the baggage carousel. However, defendant denied ownership of these bags. Clearly, defendant abandoned the bags that were later found to contain twenty-five pounds of marijuana each. Because we find that defendant abandoned the bags containing marijuana and that there was no coercive police activity that led to. defendant’s abandonment of the luggage, we hold that defendant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of his luggage.
Even if defendant did not abandon the luggage containing the marijuana and had standing to challenge the legality of its seizure, we believe that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence on the basis that the police had no probable cause to detain defendant’s luggage.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by both the United States and Michigan Constitutions. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. The state and federal constitutions do not forbid all searches and seizures, only unreasonable ones. Harris v United States, 331 US 145, 150; 67 S Ct 1098; 91 L Ed 1399 (1947); People v Jordan, 187 Mich App 582, 586; 468 NW2d 294 (1991). Reasonableness depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Id.
In United States v Place, 462 US 696; 103 S Ct 2637; 77 L Ed 2d 110 (1983), the United States Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement authorities from temporarily detaining personal luggage for exposure to a trained narcotics-detection dog on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the luggage contains narcotics. The Court concluded [518]*518that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a detention. Id. at 697-698.
In Place, the Court stated:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gillis, J.
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(c); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(c), and, following a preliminary examination, was bound over for trial. Thereafter, defendant moved to suppress the evidence against him. Following a hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court suppressed the evidence and entered an order dismissing this [514]*514case. The prosecutor now appeals as of right, claiming defendant had no standing to contest the search of his suitcases. We agree, and reverse.
At defendant’s preliminary examination, Mawan Taleb, a member of the Wayne County Sheriffs Department, assigned to the DEA Task Force at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, testified that, on January 6, 1990, he was monitoring incoming passengers on a flight from Phoenix, Arizona, for suspected drug carriers. Taleb observed defendant get off the plane, noticed him turn his head and look behind him several times, and observed the small gym bag defendant was carrying. Defendant then proceeded to the baggage carousel. Taleb continued to observe defendant, who appeared to be looking around. On the basis of defendant’s behavior, Taleb identified himself to defendant, showed defendant his badge, and asked to speak with him.
Taleb requested that defendant show him his airline ticket. The ticket bore the name Aross and had two baggage checks on it. Taleb noted the numbers on the baggage checks and returned the ticket to defendant. Taleb asked to see defendant’s identification, but defendant claimed that he did not have any identification. However, defendant stated his name, date of birth, and address in Tucson, Arizona.
Taleb asked defendant why he was not flying under his own name, and defendant stated that a friend had purchased the ticket for him. In response to further questioning, defendant stated that he was going to stay with his father in Toledo, Ohio.
Defendant then consented to Taleb’s request to search defendant and his gym bag for narcotics. The gym bag bore the name Fredo. When Taleb’s [515]*515search of defendant and the gym bag uncovered no narcotics, Taleb asked defendant if he could search his checked bags, and defendant said no. Taleb then told defendant that he was going to detain his bags and that he had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was carrying narcotics. At this point, defendant was not under arrest.
At this point, there were only a few bags left on the luggage carousel. Two other police officers, Officer Mary Taylor and Officer Robert Linderman, arrived on the scene. Officer Linderman was accompanied by a narcotics-detection dog. The officers were informed of defendant’s baggage claim numbers.
Defendant then asked Taleb if he could make a telephone call, and Taleb responded that he was not under arrest and that he could do whatever he wanted. Defendant made a telephone call, then returned to search for his bags. Defendant told officer Taylor that he had tweed Jordache bags, but there were no bags matching that description on the carousel. The officers then retrieved the luggage matching the claim check numbers attached to defendant’s ticket. The claim checks on these bags, like defendant’s carry-on gym bag, bore the name Fredo.
At this point, Officer Linderman had the narcotics-detection dog sniff the bags. The officers received a positive response from the dog, and defendant was placed under arrest. Taleb then asked defendant for the claim check stubs to the bags. Defendant gave Taleb the ticket envelope, but the claim checks were not in it. Defendant claimed not to know where they were. Further, defendant denied ownership of the retrieved bags. The officers then opened the suitcases and found twenty-five pounds of marijuana in each suitcase. Taleb never obtained a search warrant to search the [516]*516luggage because he felt that defendant had abandoned the bags.
During cross-examination, Taleb stated that he became suspicious of defendant because defendant’s plane came from a "source” city, defendant repeatedly looked over his shoulder, and the gym bag defendant was carrying appeared to be lightweight, which indicated to Taleb that defendant would not be staying in the area long. Taleb’s suspicions were further aroused when he determined that defendant’s name was different than the name on his airline ticket and that defendant’s ticket had been paid for in cash.
On appeal, the people argue that defendant had no standing to object to the search of the suitcases because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the suitcases. Defendant argues that the luggage was not abandoned, and, therefore, he had standing to challenge the legality of the seizure.
A person can abandon an object and thus deprive himself of standing to challenge the validity of the seizure of the object. People v Mamon, 435 Mich 1, 6; 457 NW2d 623 (1990). If a person abandons an object, he has no justifiable expectation of privacy in the object, and any police confiscation of the object is not a seizure in the constitutional sense. People v Boykin, 119 Mich App 763, 766; 327 NW2d 351 (1982). However, coercive police activity resulting in an abandonment serves to nullify any claim of abandonment. People v Shabaz, 424 Mich 42, 66; 378 NW2d 451 (1985).
After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that defendant abandoned his luggage and, therefore, did not have standing to challenge the seizure of the bags. Defendant advised Officer Taleb that he had tweed Jordache bags. No bags [517]*517matching defendant’s description of his luggage were found on the baggage carousel. However, bags with numbers matching the numbers on defendant’s baggage checks were found on the baggage carousel. However, defendant denied ownership of these bags. Clearly, defendant abandoned the bags that were later found to contain twenty-five pounds of marijuana each. Because we find that defendant abandoned the bags containing marijuana and that there was no coercive police activity that led to. defendant’s abandonment of the luggage, we hold that defendant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of his luggage.
Even if defendant did not abandon the luggage containing the marijuana and had standing to challenge the legality of its seizure, we believe that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence on the basis that the police had no probable cause to detain defendant’s luggage.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by both the United States and Michigan Constitutions. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. The state and federal constitutions do not forbid all searches and seizures, only unreasonable ones. Harris v United States, 331 US 145, 150; 67 S Ct 1098; 91 L Ed 1399 (1947); People v Jordan, 187 Mich App 582, 586; 468 NW2d 294 (1991). Reasonableness depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Id.
In United States v Place, 462 US 696; 103 S Ct 2637; 77 L Ed 2d 110 (1983), the United States Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement authorities from temporarily detaining personal luggage for exposure to a trained narcotics-detection dog on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the luggage contains narcotics. The Court concluded [518]*518that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a detention. Id. at 697-698.
In Place, the Court stated:
In this case, the Government asks us to recognize the reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment of warrantless seizures of personal luggage from the custody of the owner on the basis of less than probable cause, for the purpose of pursuing a limited course of investigation, short of opening the luggage, that would quickly confirm or dispel the authorities’ suspicion. Specifically, we are asked to apply the principles of Terry v Ohio [392 US 1; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968)] to permit such seizures on the basis of reasonable, articulable suspicion, premised on objective facts, that the luggage contains contraband or evidence of a crime. In our view, such application is appropriate. [Id. at 702.]
The Place Court held that "when an officer’s observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry and its progeny would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope.” Id. at 706.
To justify such detention, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts that, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Terry, supra at 21. We disagree with the finding of the trial court that there was nothing to justify the intrusion in this case.
Officer Taleb stated that he became suspicious of defendant because defendant’s plane came from a "source” city, defendant repeatedly looked over his shoulder, and the gym bag defendant was carrying [519]*519appeared to be lightweight, which indicated to Taleb that defendant would not be staying in the area long. Taleb’s suspicions were further aroused when defendant’s name was different than the name on his airline ticket and when he determined that defendant’s ticket had been paid for in cash.
We conclude that these facts, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warranted the detention of the suitcases for purposes of exposing them to a narcotics-detection dog under Place.
We reverse the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence and dismissing this case. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Michael J. Kelly, J., concurred.