I dissent. In my opinion the initiation of the search of the suitcase and the participa *646 tion in that search by the government law enforcement officers does not permit us to characterize the search as a private search outside the restrictions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A review of the undisputed facts adduced at the suppression hearing establishes the extensive involvement of the law enforcement officers.

Officers William Johnson and Fred Stadtler were detectives with the Organized Crime Bureau of Narcotics, Investigation Section employed by Dade County, Florida. They were assigned to work in the Miami International Airport to investigate interstate transportation of narcotics. On the evening of March 31, 1979 at about 8:30 or 8:45 p. m., Detective Johnson observed a suitcase up against the National Airlines ticket counter on the rear side at the very end of the counter. (TR 21 — 22). 1 The bag was located about 10 to 15 feet from the entrance of the conveyer belt that transported baggage to the baggage makeup area. (TR 21) He observed the suitcase for about 15 minutes, noting that it bore no identification nor any destination tag. When no one approached the suitcase during this time he then interviewed three National Airline ticket counter employees who were working at their stations behind the counter. (TR 22) The ticket agents did not know to whom it belonged nor had they seen anyone put it there. There is no indication that Detective Johnson suggested to them that they follow normal procedures to see that the bag was placed on the flight with the owner.

Instead, Detective Johnson went to the office of Peter Johnson, the Senior Station Manager of National Airlines, who is the supervisor of the 45 employees involved in the checking and ticketing of passengers, to report the lost bag to him. In his testimony, the station manager stated that Detective Johnson “told me he had seen a bag which had been placed at the end of my counter by someone and had been sitting there for quite some time apparently unattended and that it had no identification on the outside or no strap check indicating destination city on the back, and just brought it to my attention.” (TR 30)

The station manager stated that he was going to check into it; Detective Johnson told him he would go with him and watch. (TR 7) The station manager, Peter Johnson, evidencing a remarkable concern for this one unidentified bag, then personally went with Detective Johnson to the counter to see the bag. He there questioned the employees who stated they had no knowledge about the bag.

Detective Johnson carefully advised station manager Johnson “that I wasn’t trying to influence anything that he wanted to do, simply telling him that the bag was there.” (TR 8) Detective Stadtler then joined them. The station manager took the suitcase to a private area, a hallway adjacent to his office, accompanied by both detectives Johnson and Stadtler, who also evidenced an unusually conscientious concern that this one unidentified piece of luggage be immediately reunited with its owner.

Station manager Johnson stated that he decided that he should open the bag for the stated purpose of attempting to find some identification in the bag to assist in getting it on the proper flight to reunite it with the passenger. He “unsnapped the two snaps at either end of the suitcase and manipulated the combination lock and said I can’t get the combination lock open.” (TR 15) Detective Johnson was able to assist and kicked it with his heel and opened the combination lock. The station manager then opened the suitcase disclosing a 357 magnum pistol which lay on top of a bedspread covering everything else in the bag. The station manager continued examining the contents of the bag which revealed opaque plastic bags under the bedspread inside a pillow case. Detectives Johnson and Stadtler then took possession of the suitcase and its contents and opened the plastic bags finding a white powder which proved to be cocaine. At no point was a search warrant obtained.

The majority finds this warrantless search to be proper. The majority states:

The order of the district court is very brief. 2 The only actual finding of fact, that I can discover, upon which the majority can rely for this conclusion is the finding that the suitcase was “opened by a National Airlines’ employee for the purpose of determining its ownership.” The district court did not find who initiated the search as the majority contends; it really only found the National Airlines’ employee’s purpose in searching. I have particular difficulty in accepting this finding of the district court— that the purpose of the search by the station manager was to see that the bag was promptly delivered to the passenger. In order to accept the majority’s view of the evidence we must believe that the detective from the state narcotics bureau was so interested in good passenger service that when he saw this one unidentified suitcase which was up against the end of the counter, unclaimed for 15 minutes, that he felt compelled to report it to the station manager. Apparently none of the employees behind the counter were enough concerned even after he spoke to them to take any action. When the station manager learned of the bag he did not thank Detective Johnson and instruct one of the 45 employees he supervises to take appropriate action but personally took charge of the matter. He opened the bag in a private area in the presence of Detective Johnson and Detecfive Stadtler who we are asked to believe joined station manager Johnson out of an interest in seeing that the passenger received this bag on time.

Even according the deference due to the trial court’s findings of fact I cannot accept this finding, considering the manner in which the search was commenced and accomplished. I am compelled by the record to conclude that the motivating factor was an accommodation of the desire of the narcotics detectives to have the suitcase searched for contraband under the pretext of an authorized private search.

However, even accepting the district court’s only factual finding, that the suitcase was “opened by a National Airlines’ employee for the purpose of determining its ownership,” the legal conclusion of the district court is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. The order of the district court set forth the following legal conclusion:

With the hovering presence of the government agents at all stages and with their actual participation in the search, it appears to me that the government’s involvement in the search was so pervasive throughout as to constitute a government search. This is apparent from the initial discovery of the suitcase, the inducement of the search by implicit hints to the station manager that it *648 should be searched, the unnecessary presence of the officers while it was searched, the kicking open of the lock and the ultimate participation of the government officers in the examination of the contents after it was opened. In my mind this search can hardly be characterized as a private search, outside the restrictions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the case of a private search the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment restrictions apply if the private party “in light of all the circumstances of the case, must be regarded as having acted as an ‘instrument’ or agent of the state.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2049 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).

Contrary to the majority’s view, Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1966), in my opinion, controls this case. At the very least this was a joint endeavor as in Corngold . The language of the opinion is particularly apt:

Id. at 5-6 (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Gumerlock, 590 F.2d 794 , 800 n. 19 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948 , 99 S.Ct. 2173 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979).

In my estimation the government participation in this warrantless search compels suppression of the evidence. I would reverse.

. All references to TR are to the reporter’s transcript.

. The district judge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in his order denying appellant’s motion to suppress:

(footnote omitted).