currently serving a twenty one month prison sentence mr yours argument is that the district court erred by finding that his girlfriend who woman named samantha's m p provided voluntary consent for a search of a house that resulted in the discovery the firearm for which that in a circumstance where law enforcement makes a representation that it has the authority to conduct a search and if a party cedes to that authority then that's not a situation in which the government can rely upon the voluntary consent exception to the search warrant requirement century what the bumper court said is that in that circumstance there is a level of coersion of police coersion and in that circumstance or cannot be consent that seemed voluntary this was a domestic disturbance in which mr gager committed an assault on his girlfriend ms is empty ms empty went to the humboldt county sheriff's department or law enforcement center in humb process of moving into that home the record below indicates that they'd spent approximately four nights at the home before this assault the assault occurred at the home at some point during the investigation officer rather deputy and then in a conversation with mr yeager on the way to the humboldt county jail mr gager confirmed that he did in fact have a gun in the house were bumper comes in is in the process of taking a statement from ms m p at the humboldt county law enforcement center deputy lampy told her we have to get the gun or we're going to get the gun something to that effect and there's no dispute based on the record below that that statement was made by deputy lampy can look to page sixty four the transcript suppression hearing for that there was no indication from deputy lampy that mrs empty had the right to refuse law enforcement coming along to get the gun there was evidence that ms m p did want to return to the house to get some of her belongings before leaving and mizuki ultimately agreed to have deputy land being in eventually another deputy from the humboldt county sheriff's department accompany her at the house in thor so this was a circumstance where mrs m p had no reason to believe that she could deny deputy lampe ease instruction that they needed to get the gun and she essentially needed to participate in law enforcement recovering that gun so i think it's the reason personal reason to agree she did she had a good person reason to go back with their review this is voluntary consent as a matter of clear air that's correct your hon wouldn't mind at all going back and getting her stuff when he wasn't there she expressed that she was concerned as to how mr jaegers cousin richard fitzgerald would react to it all these cases of the of the guns and domestic yeah that said stop me if i start talking about the wrong case but it seems to me that the clear particularly and clear view that there's a basis to infer that even though she later tried to help him at the hearing was found that to be credible she was quite quite willing and was in her interests to have the police go back with her while she  bumper or a case like united states versus connor from the circuit in one thousand nine hundred seven in coincidently that originated from the northerners to provide always well where the cop said we are coming in we have to come into this particular hotel room in this court found that that was not a situation where voluntary consent could be relied upon but there is sufficient information in the record to show that ms dempsey's consent was not voluntary of course we dispute the district court's factual finding that and lorraine marshall were not credible at the suppression hearing i recognise it's a credibility finding and it's going to be difficult for mr gager to rely upon that here but even setting that aside setting the factual dispute aside the factors that this court considers in deciding whether consent is voluntary do side in favor of mr yeager nonetheless there are certain factors that are admittedly in the government's favor there is no evidence in particular that ms dempsey was intoxicated that she was detained although she was initially approached about going back to the house at the humble county law enforcement center there's no allegation that deputy lampy threatened her in any expressway and ultimately she did participate in the search more last when she crawled through the back window of this house  door to let the officers in the other factors that are pretty neutral she's twenty six years old that's not young that's not old by any means either and there was no indication or no no necessity to give her miranda rights or anything of that nature but there are a number of suppression here if you look to page seventy and seventy one of the transcript that he found mrs m p to be of below average intelligence and perhaps naive and not well educated the district court didn't have any sound basis for rejecting deputy lant b s own assessment as to ms mts level of intelligence she had minimal experience in the past with law enforcement she testified that she'd only been arrested once before for a misdemeanor and that had been  d this consent that she granted to deputy lampy for the entry into the home initially occurred initially was given at the law enforcement center so it wasn't in public in a place where she'd feel terribly comfortable and then they drove in the dark of the night back to the tiny town of thor iowa there was testimony there was no one around at the time that they were looking for a means to more or less break into this house to get him to get the gun so it wasn't a circumstance where the reasonable person would feel comfortable with denying a law enforcement request and ultimately although we haven't pursued the point that she didn't have authority to grant the search that's not something that i brought on appeal she did have a fairly minimal connection to the house you don't have stayed there for about four days before then so in my view with that in mind it would be easier to override her will in getting her to grant consent for the entry given her minimal connection to the house it wasn't her home she didn't have a good morning i'm jamie bowers from sioux city on behalf of the government the crux of this is this is it is another snowflake in a blizzard that you discussed in a cross case a few minutes ago and really  stems from a domestic abuse assault situation like a cross case that the facts are different of course but similar in those regards the the  meeting with the police officer and the victim of the assault was one of caring and looking after an abused person the object of the the meeting wasn't to get into this house and and find a gun and ring the ring the defendant here up on a on a felony possession charge it was one of addressing a call from the home of a good samaritan the neighbor lady who said hey this lady is here in my house she's been abused she ran down the block she needs help those of us in statistic a good big big city sioux city the initial contact or yes or no stemmed from that in the evening was it was couched in niceness and caring the interaction between the police and the defendant's girlfriend mother of his couple of kids  the neighbor lady said to the police officer he heard these girls talking about a gun in the house they're kind of worried about it you might want to check that out and that's what happened in the officer once he had the defendant in his car for safekeeping said what's the deal about the strangled a couple of times in the house and where and how long had you been living there and you want to go back and get your stuff those types of things and that's what happened certainly they want to go back and get the gun was concerned about it it was saying that the crux of this though is unfortunately that it is a domestic abuse situation that domestic abusers have power in the exercise it in what i would say is a sad puppet show oftentimes as in the cross case in this case what's this woman going to do she comes into court and i and my argument at the time was judge you know she's in a tight spot she the she as she say you know i let the officers come in there to she said i've got to go back and live with this guy the father of my children and be the the sole witness who hangs him up a credibility determination was made by judge williams and then after the r and r was set up judge strand on tamil review said the same thing the defendants girlfriend and the defendant sister were just not  evable or not credible not to say they were evil liars but they were in a tough spot and judge williams evaluated their behavior the way they answered questions the answers to the questions is as the answers matched up with the facts on the ground that were undisputed were recorded by audiotape and the courts found that the two women you're right virtually and virtually is why we're here because there is minute can never be a but that we know the role of the court though is the side what virtually risk is never ever ever ever but in this case regard to whether consent was voluntary and for the reasons i addressed when i was initially up here i don't believe that consent was voluntary in this particular case if if it were the case mr yeager could go back and easily reversed the district cour credibility finding i think this would be a very easy case because ms m p would have made it very clear that she did not want to enter the home that she did not feel comfortable continuing with this effort to find a window to break into and one thing i'll say with respect to p like i said before the district court found that she was of average intelligence and also strong willed and i think that finding was inconsistent because the imprimatur of the district court's order was that it seems that ms m p has been manipulated in some way by jaeger which would suggest that she was not strong willed i don't view this is a sad puppet show i think there are a number of factors here to suggest that law enforcement should have encountered the search differently finally i'd point the court to the case of united states versus pena studies as a i z one sixty one f thirty seven seventy five case of an airport search where the cop told the person who did you submitted a search that this is our job we have to do the search i do think that's the case it's close on point with that i'd ask the court to reverse the district court very well we thank you for your argument the case is not submitted and we will take it under consideration