dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In affirming this conviction the majority gives great deference to the law enforcement goals of the DEA agents, so much so that I fear scrutiny has been diverted from the means used by Agents Thornton and Overbaugh to achieve those goals. The desirability of the agents’ goals is unquestionable: they intercepted illegal drugs and apprehended one man who was in possession and another who was later convicted of distributing them. But, as the majority recognizes, the agents could only accomplish this goal by arresting appellant and seizing objects found in his car. The majority offers two rationales for this arrest and search: (1) There was probable cause for arresting appellant on October 2, 1978, and ■the search was incident to the arrest to protect the officers and prevent evidence from being destroyed. Yet a magistrate who reviewed the evidence against appellant found no probable cause shortly after the arrest; the court below agreed, and the government on this appeal conceded the absence of probable cause.1 (2) The agents had the right to make at least a limited investigatory stop of the car (whether on the basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion) and saw the incriminating evidence in plain view.2 But all the agents saw after they looked into appellant’s car was a small plain manila envelope—hardly contraband in plain view. Even the envelope was not seen until the agents looked purposefully into appellant’s car.
In my view the majority waters down the requirement of probable cause for arrest to a requirement of mere suspicion. By approving a search on mere suspicion of a car and an innocent looking envelope in the car, the majority’s plain view approach eviscerates the requirement of probable cause for a search. Thus, in my view, the affirmance results from an undue deference to the legitimacy of the law enforcement goals which motivated the agents as they approached appellant’s car and from an unfortunate disregard for constitutional limits on the means used by the agents to achieve those goals.
The majority’s probable cause discussion reflects this emphasis on law enforcement purposes. The agents learned of drug transactions between Biggies and Sanders from an anonymous informant’s repeated tips, the latest received three days before the seizure of the drugs on October 2. Although the informant’s credibility is unchallenged, the record does not reveal the circumstances which led the informant to conclude that a drug transaction would take place at the predicted time or location or between the named participants. Instead, the informant merely told the officers that at a given time of day two men would emerge from a particular building and proceed to a car, where they would conduct a *1318drug transaction. The agents knew that the two men, Biggies and appellant, had been involved in a single narcotics transaction seven years earlier that resulted in a conviction of appellant for distribution of narcotics. The majority concludes that, once the agents confirmed by surveillance that the meeting took place at the location and in the automobile described by the informant and once the agents observed Biggles’s excited expression and his “furtive” gesture in throwing a small envelope to the floor as they approached the car, the agents had “sufficient facts to warrant [the] belief that a crime ha[d] been committed and that the person[s] who [were] to be arrested committed it.” At 1312, citing United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1171 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 939, 100 S.Ct. 2161, 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980) (a case in which the DEA agents had observed firsthand some of the criminal activity which created the probable cause for arrest). Relying on Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), the majority concludes that the confirmation of innocent details from the informant’s tip established probable cause for arrest of appellant as well as Biggies, even if the agents did not know what led the informant to put the finger on their meeting.
I cannot read Draper so broadly as to support probable cause in these circumstances. See generally LaFave, Probable Cause from Informants, 1977 U. OF ILL. L.F. 1. An informant’s tip can create probable cause for arrest or search only on some showing both of likely reliability and of some circumstances upon which the tip was based. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1978). The reason for considering the circumstances upon which the tip was based is that probable causé must be based upon something more definite than suspicions of an informant or “rumors of the illegal activity.” United States v. Fox, 606 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). Indeed, probable cause must be based upon something more than the mere suspicion of experienced law enforcement officials. Aguilar, supra, 378 U.S. at 112-14, 84 S.Ct. at 1512-1514. See United States v. Deggendorf, 626 F.2d 47 at 52 (8th Cir. 1980). In my view, to allow police to arrest individuals upon mere suspicion opens the door to the worst sort of discriminatory abuse of police power. E.g., United States v. Ardle, 435 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 1638, 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971) (long hair of suspect considered as a factor giving customs agent probable cause to search for narcotics). Such latitude tempts informants “to fabricate reports of criminality in order to satisfy grudges, protect friends, or receive money payments.” Rebell, The Undisclosed Informant and the Fourth Amendment, 81 YALE L.J. 703, 718 (1972).
Nothing in Draper reduces the probable cause requirement. In Draper, a reliable informant told police the accused had trav-elled to another city to obtain narcotics and would return on a train from a given place on a specific morning; the informant described in detail the outfit the accused would be wearing, the tan zipper bag he would be carrying, and the accused’s gait. Although the record did not disclose how the informant came by this information, from the kind of particularized detail it could be inferred that the informant was a participant in the narcotics transaction; for example, details about clothing someone plans to wear while travelling is the sort of information a traveller provides to someone expected to meet him. In Draper, therefore, when the police confirmed the details of the tip, they also had some basis for inferring how the informant learned of the alleged criminal activity. See Spinelli, supra, 393 U.S. at 426-27, 89 S.Ct. at 594-595 (White, J., concurring). See also Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 567, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1036, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); United States v. Scott, 545 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 796, 50 L.Ed.2d 784 (1977).
By contrast, the DEA agents did not have probable cause in this case because the record discloses nothing in the informant’s tip from which the agents could infer the cir*1319cumstances which led the informant to believe a crime would take place. See United States v. Williams, 604 F.2d 1102, 1122 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. Bailey, 547 F.2d 68 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Wood, 545 F.2d 1124, 1126 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1098, 97 S.Ct. 1118, 51 L.Ed.2d 546 (1977). Thus, the informant’s tip must be regarded as creating mere suspicion—reasonable suspicion, perhaps, because its subjects were known to have previously engaged in drug transactions. When the agents observed Sanders and Biggies come out of a building and enter a car as the informant predicted, their suspicions were prolonged. But the informant had provided no information that would suggest with any force that he knew any more about these suspicious meetings than anyone who perhaps knew about a meeting for any purpose between Biggies and appellant. “This meager [information] could easily have been obtained from an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar.” Spine Ili, supra, 393 U.S. at 417, 89 S.Ct. at 589. In contrast, the Draper informant knew things that would not be expected unless he were a participant in some endeavor with the accused. I note also that the Draper tip was much more detailed than the tip in the instant case. See United States v. Mitchell, 425 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 853, 91 S.Ct. 85, 27 L.Ed.2d 90 (1970). See also United States v. Garcia, 593 F.2d 77, 78-79 (8th Cir. 1979). The agents themselves observed no unlawful conduct and did not even see any suspicious object until after they conducted the search. Cf. United States v. Howe, 591 F.2d 454 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 963, 99 S.Ct. 2411, 60 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1979) (transfer of cigarettes observed during investigation of cigarette tax evasion); see also United States v. Young, 567 F.2d 799 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1079, 98 S.Ct. 1273, 55 L.Ed.2d 786 (1978) (informant’s tip that stolen machinery would be transported across state line confirmed when FBI agents from a distance observed inside trailer driven by suspect machinery of the type stolen). Therefore, in may view the DEA agents approaching appellant’s car on October 2 had only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, to believe the subjects had committed a crime. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15-17, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369-370, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (informant’s tip that opium was being smoked in hotel room confirmed by odor of opium emanating from room not adequate to support probable cause for arrest). But see United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1005, 99 S.Ct. 618, 58 L.Ed.2d 682 (1978). See generally Eighth Circuit Survey, 13 Creighton L.Rev. 1091, 1307 (1980).
The only additional information the agents obtained upon approaching the car came from the “furtive” gesture3 and excited expression of Biggies. The majority does not explain how Biggies’s gesture could have given the agents probable cause *1320to arrest appellant, whom the agents still merely suspect of dealing in narcotics. I doubt that Biggies’s behavior would support probable cause to arrest Biggies, let alone anyone else in the car. Biggies’s reaction, of course, was provoked by the appearance of the agents, who drove up suddenly, stopped directly in front of appellant’s car, and approached. Before they identified themselves as drug agents, Biggies threw something on the floor.4 I cannot see how this act is inconsistent with perfectly innocent behavior: for example, an attempt by the occupant of a car to conceal something valuable when approached suddenly and aggressively in what from the point of view of the occupant might be a robbery. Cf. United States v. Wood, supra, 545 F.2d at 1127 (during an investigative stop of a car, suspect threw some white powder out of the car which a field test showed to be cocaine; the police then had probable cause to arrest driver and search car). Absent discovery of some substantial clue pointing to a drug transaction before the agents approached the car, I do not think Biggies’s response on their approach created probable cause. “A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). I would agree with the magistrate who heard the original complaint, with the trial court and with the government, all of whom thought that probable cause did not exist. Thus, the seizure of the brown “packet” was not justified as a search incident to arrest.
Likewise, I think that the majority’s alternative holding, that the narcotics were in plain view when the agents approached the car, can only be supported by undue emphasis on the law enforcement goals of the agents. In my view, although the agents did not have probable cause to arrest appellant and Biggies, they did have reasonable suspicion that justified approaching the car.5 I have difficulty, however, concluding even that the brown packet was in plain view at this time. Agent Overbaugh testified he did not see the packet when Biggies made his quick gesture to throw it down, that the packet was on the floor even with the overhang of the seat, and that he found it by looking purposefully into the car. Thus, the packet itself seems not to have been visible at all to someone standing outside the car. A purposeful search was required to observe the packet at all.
Furthermore, as the majority recognizes, the plain view doctrine applies only where “the incriminating nature of the article [seized is] immediately apparent.” At 1314. See United States v. Clark, 531 F.2d 928, 932-33 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Molkenbur, 430 F.2d 563 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 952, 91 S.Ct. 244, 27 *1321L.Ed.2d 258 (1970). The majority further determines that in the circumstances of this case the incriminating nature of a 2½ by 3 inch, heavy manila envelope is immediately apparent. This rather surprising conclusion should give pause to anyone who, for example, uses such packets to carry valuable stamps and coins or who receives a watch back from a repair shop in such an envelope. In my view such an apparently innocent object can be considered incriminating only if we suppose that the law enforcement goal of the agents gave them a kind of x-ray vision revealing the contents of the envelope. To impute to the agents this insight into the packet’s contents, the majority relies upon the legitimate goals of the agents, who did indeed suspect narcotics traffic in the car, and so would also suspect that any suitable container found in the car, no matter how innocent in appearance, would be used for narcotics. See at 1314-1315 & n.7. But I do not think that the plain view doctrine allows law enforcement agents to search any container or package that seems suspicious to them.6 See United States v. Jackson, 576 F.2d 749, 753 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 858, 99 S.Ct. 175, 58 L.Ed.2d 167 (1978). Cf. Carpenter v. Sigler, 419 F.2d 169 (8th Cir. 1969) (similar stop; burglary tools seen in plain view beside car seat). See a iso United States v. Cornejo, 598 F.2d 554, 556 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). I therefore disagree with the conclusion that the seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine.7 See also *1322United States v. Berenguer, 562 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Robinson, 535 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Shye, 473 F.2d 1061 (6th Cir. 1973). Cf. United States v. Diaz, 577 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1978) (incriminating nature of paper bag obvious when bag was found by agent stuffed into toilet tank).
The contrary conclusion reached by the majority is, of course, attractive, for the DEA agents did intercept dangerous narcotic drugs through enforcement activity that was routine in the sense of being accomplished without excessive force or obviously unseemly conduct. But “[a] search prosecuted in violation of the Constitution is not made lawful by what it brings to light.” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 29, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927). See also United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594-95, 68 S.Ct. 222, 228-229, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948).
A rule protective of law-abiding citizens is not apt to flourish where its advocates are usually criminals. Yet the rule we fashion is for the innocent and guilty alike. If the word of the informer . is sufficient to make the [present] arrest legal, his word would also protect the police who, acting on it, hauled the innocent citizen off to jail.
Draper v. United States, supra, 358 U.S. at 314-15, 79 S.Ct. at 333-334 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
My analysis of the probable cause question also leads me to believe that the statements obtained from appellant after his arrest should also be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful arrest. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Wong Sun v. United States, supra, 371 U.S. at 484-87, 83 S.Ct. at 415-417. Although the government argues that the agents did not put appellant under arrest on October 2 until after he gave a statement disclaiming knowledge of the narcotics, the agents clearly seized petitioner when they forced him to leave his car for a pat down, confiscated the car pursuant to the arrest of Biggies when narcotics was discovered, induced appellant to accompany them to the courthouse, gave him Miranda warnings, arid interrogated him in order to decide whether to file a complaint. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, 442 U.S. at 212-14, 99 S.Ct. at 2256-2257. All this was done to appellant without probable cause to arrest him. After appellant denied knowing anything about the narcotics, the agents filed a formal complaint against him and told him he would have to appear before a magistrate. The agents considered appellant to be under arrest from the filing of the complaint on October 2, until October 5, when at preliminary examination the magistrate dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.
In the meantime, on October 3, the agents once again spoke with appellant and used the complaint, which was pending, to induce him to make a further statement. Agent Thornton testified on cross-examination by Robert Wright, appellant’s attorney at trial:
A. Well, I asked him that—on October 3rd if he’d assist us, if he wanted to indicate to us that Mr. Biggies was receiving these capsules rather than himself; and he said something like, well, he didn’t want to be a snitch, or something like that.
Q. Well, isn’t it a fact that on October the 3rd he did say that, “I made an investigation, and these capsules came from an individual in Kansas City”? Didn’t he tell you that?
*1323A. He said a guy by the name of Big Boy would bring them up, who drove a white Cadillac, something like that.
Q. Is that when he told you he wasn’t going to be a snitch, when he told you about this Big Boy and that they came from Kansas City?
A. Well, I asked him if he could assist us further than just general information, such as Big Boy and that, and then he said it after that, when I asked him if he could assist us further.
Although the complaint against appellant was dismissed for lack of probable cause, an indictment subsequently was obtained on the drug charges; 8 Agents Thornton and Overbaugh arrested appellant on October 25. Before the agents informed appellant of his rights under the Miranda decision and before the agents interrogated him, he offered a statement that the narcotics seized from Biggies had been in a type of capsule not available in the local area. It is difficult to think of a more direct response to Agent Thornton’s October 3 request for more information. That request drew its force from appellant’s October 2 arrest, found later by a magistrate to have lacked probable cause. The agents thereby used the arrest without probable cause to lever from appellant his self-incriminating statement, relied upon by the prosecution as a lynchpin of its case.9
Because in my opinion the October 2 and 25 statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, I would not reach the issue of whether appellant’s October 25 statement was voluntary. I note, however, that the record contains a psychiatric report stating that appellant is emotionally disturbed and would, under stress, suffer an abnormally diminished capacity to reason. The majority fails to address this critical factor in its discussion of voluntariness. “[Djetermina-tions of voluntariness are based upon assessment of all the circumstances and factors surrounding the occurrence when the statement was made. . . . The ‘totality of circumstances’ inquiry requires the reviewing court to investigate and analyze ‘both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’ ” United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308, at 316 (8th Cir., 1980), citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). See also Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1959); Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). See generally Dix, Mistake, Ignorance, Expectation of Benefit and the Modern Law of Confessions, 1975 Wash.U. L.Q. 275; Frano, Voluntariness, Free Will and the Law of Confessions, 65 Va.L.Rev. 859 (1979).
Accordingly, I would reverse appellant’s conviction.
. On October 2, 1978, the agents stopped appellant’s car and found on the floor a brown envelope containing narcotics which had been dropped by appellant’s associate Biggies; the same day the agents filed a criminal complaint against appellant. Magistrate R. E. Longstaff of the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the complaint on October 5 for lack of probable cause. (Magistrate Longstaff did so even though presented with evidence of the narcotics found in appellant’s car; the majority holds the agents had probable cause to arrest appellant even before they had discovered the narcotics.) At trial the district court concluded that probable cause did not exist at the time the agents approached appellant’s car. At oral argument before this court, the government conceded that there was no probable cause at the time the car was approached, and in. its brief the government states flatly that there was “no probable cause to arrest [appellant].”
. The majority relies upon this “plain view” theory to support the seizure of the narcotics from appellant’s car and introduction of the narcotics into evidence, but not to support the arrest of appellant and introduction of his post-arrest statement into evidence. The majority relies only upon an arrest with probable cause to support introduction of appellant’s October 2 statement. At 1316. As explained below, I regard both the October 2 and October 25 statements of appellant as fruits of an unlawful arrest.
. The majority relies upon Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 66-67, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1904-1905, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), as authority for the proposition that “furtive actions” by a suspect may support probable cause. At 1312 n.4. In the passage from Sibron cited by the majority, the Supreme Court was referring to conduct of a completely different kind than a single gesture of throwing something onto the floor. The Sibron Court suggested in a footnote what it meant by “furtive actions” it considered supportive of probable cause. Id at 66 & n.22, 88 S.Ct. at 1904 & n.22, referring the reader to n.7 in that case, which indicates what gave an off-duty policeman probable cause to arrest suspects, who were strangers the policeman saw sneaking about at the apartment where the policeman lived. The policeman had lived in the elevator-equipped building for twelve years, yet did not recognize the suspects, whom he observed through a peep hole in his door. He emerged from his apartment and slammed the door, whereupon, without further prompting, the suspects fled. The Supreme Court quoted the trial judge:
We think the testimony at the hearing does not require further laboring of this aspect of the matter, unless one is to believe that it is legitimately normal for a man to tip-toe about in the public hall of an apartment house while on a visit to his unidentified girl-friend, and, when observed by another tenant, to rapidly descend by stairway in the presence of elevators.
Id. at 49 n.7, 88 S.Ct. at 1895 n.7. By contrast, in the instant case the only “furtive” gesture was a quick movement of Biggies’s hand from his shirt pocket to the floor, while Biggies was sitting in a car with appellant, the car’s owner.
. Agent Overbaugh testified he and Agent Thornton “drove up and parked in front of [the] vehicle. We both got out of the car, and started toward the car. After I saw Mr. Biggies making a movement to his shirt, [I] started yelling, “Federal agents.” (emphasis added).
. In such a case a limited search is permissible absent probable cause, because the law enforcement agent is entitled to take reasonable steps to protect himself and the public from violence which might result from the encounter with those who are objects of reasonable suspicion of felonious activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) “The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Agent Overbaugh, who seized the brown packet, testified that he was not concerned about weapons when he reached into the car; instead, he was seeking to obtain narcotics evidence. Cf. United States v. Stevens, 509 F.2d 683 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 989, 95 S.Ct. 1993, 44 L.Ed.2d 479 (1975) (search for weapon). This intrusion was clearly unjustifiable under the holding of Sibron v. New York, supra, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917, in which the Supreme Court found unlawful absent probable cause a pat-down or frisk of a narcotics suspect by a police officer seeking to obtain narcotics evidence. See also United States v. Williams, supra, 604 F.2d at 1124; United States v. Thompson, 597 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1979). Cf. United States v. Wright, 565 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 974, 98 S.Ct. 1621, 56 L.Ed.2d 67 (1978) (approving seizure of weapon seen on front seat of auto during investigative stop).
. The majority relies upon United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), to support its finding that narcotics were in plain view in this case. But the Blake case is distinguishable. In that case a search was made of a closed purse found lying on a floor with a white plastic bag protruding from it. The object in plain view was the purse. The court specifically stated, “we have determined that probable cause existed to believe that the purse contained narcotics.” Id. at 57. See also United States v. Wilson, 524 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 945, 96 S.Ct. 1415, 47 L.Ed.2d 351 (1976). In the instant case by contrast the majority makes no finding that there was probable cause to believe that the packet contained narcotics. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509-10, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1950-1951, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (seizure of containers of flammable liquid from burning building). The majority holds instead that plain view of the packet, plus the officers’ suspicions about its contents, justified the officers in looking into the packet. The majority dismisses as insignificant the absence of probable cause by asserting, “The plain view doctrine did not require Agent Overbaugh to have absolute proof of the incriminating nature of the packet . .’’At 1315. But in my view Agent Overbaugh did not have probable cause, which is a considerably lower hurdle than “absolute proof.” The agent had a mere suspicion. There is an essential constitutional significance to the difference between probable cause and mere suspicion when it comes to intrusions by law enforcement officials into cars and packages. See United States v. Clark, supra, 531 F.2d 928. That in my view is the reason the Supreme Court in Sibron, supra, reached opposite results in determining the legality of two searches, approving one based on probable cause, disapproving one on mere suspicion.
Moreover, I note that the result in Blake has been made questionable by the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), which as the majority recognizes would open up the question of “whether the expectation of privacy attends a particular container” (such as a purse). At 1315 n.7. (Of course a finding of such an expectation of privacy would not prevent a limited intrusion such as seizure of the purse, required in exigent circumstances to avoid destruction of evidence, while law enforcement officials obtained a warrant upon probable cause to search it. See Chadwick and Sanders, supra.)
. The majority suggests that the “clearly erroneous” standard for review of factual determinations by the district judge applies to the district court’s conclusion that the plain brown envelopes was of an obviously incriminating nature. At 1315 n.7. Even under this standard I would hold the district court erred, because it is clear that an innocent appearing object is not incriminating from its mere appearance. But I do not think the “clearly erroneous” standard applies because I think the error is one of law, not fact. As a matter of law the plain view doctrine applies where the agents directly observe incriminating objects, not where the agents suspect a package contains incriminating evidence.
The majority’s application of the “clearly erroneous” standard to the plain view issue seems to me somewhat inconsistent with the majority’s discussion of probable cause which does not apply the “clearly erroneous” standard to the factual findings below. “The quantum of information which constitutes probable *1322cause . . . must be measured by the facts of the particular case.” Wong Sun v. United States, supra, 371 U.S. at 479, 83 S.Ct. at 413.
I find a similar inconsistency in the majority’s assertion,, “All parties concede that the packet was within the plain view of Agent Overbaugh.” At 1314. Yet the majority does not mention the government’s concession that no probable cause existed at the time appellant’s car was stopped. Moreover, I do not think anyone claims that the brown envelope was visible until Agent Overbaugh purposefully looked into appellant’s car. Agent Overbaugh testified that he did not see the packet at the time Biggies made his “furtive gesture.”
. Additional evidence became available to the government subsequent to the complaint; Biggies testified against appellant at his trial but did not do so at the October 5 preliminary examination. We are not informed what evidence was presented to the grand jury.
. Don Nickerson, the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the case, stated in his closing argument:
[I]f I were in Columbo or if I were Sherlock Holmes, or even Dr. Watson, if I were looking at this case from a pure common sense investigative prospective, the one piece of evidence that would push me over that hump ., coupled with Biggies’ testimony, is the fact that on October 2nd the Defendant knew nothing about the dope. Then all of a sudden on October 25, without talking to the DEA, the only people who knew about the rarity of the capsules, besides the source of the capsules, the Defendant all of a sudden had knowledge.
If he didn’t get the knowledge from the DEA, Willard Sanders got the knowledge from the person from whom he got the dope.