for consent to search and nd i mean that the government met its burden to show that the consent was voluntary despite the fact that the consent was given with soriano knowing that incriminating evidence would be discovered this court's previous decision and united states verbal intimidation that was not the case here trooper rodriguez's questioning of soriano directly before asking for consent was an accusatory ramp up of an array of different questions and accusations nd in paralysis the district court had found that the incriminating evidence was particularly well hidden and specifically it was inside of an engine block that it took multiple officers to disassemble and therefore the defendant there likely consented thinking that the evidence would not be found here the incriminating evidence was in a duffel bag on the back seat of a sedan about which trooper rodriguez had already expressed her suspicions starting with the coercive police procedures before the that those three factors were not by themselves sufficient to find a course of procedures but this court's cases have consistently held that they're highly relevant and indicative of coercion those three factors combined with the accusatory quest neighing made this concert made this made the procedures used by trooper rodriguez prior to asking for consent coercive this court has never addressed the side sort of accusatory questioning that she employed but this court did find that an officer had made his suspicions known then asked for consent which made it refusal at that point seemed pointless further the th circuit in robertson has found accusatory questioning co and of course the supreme court and neckcloth specifically said account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions here the district court did not take those questions into account and therefore clearly erred the questions that i'm specifically referring to are the questions that happened between rodriguez and soriano in their nd encounter during the st encounter she had asked him about his itinerary his criminal history the contents of the car and his job in the nd conversation  she st clarified when he had purchased the car and an issue in his criminal history he then accused him of lying to her about his mother and lying to her about his criminal history explaining why she had think she thought she had lied which led to a short discussion after that she summarized saying i don't understand your nervousness since you were in the front that you didn't understand the question about your mom and all that i'm going to ask you a clear question is there anything in the vehicle that you shouldn't have he answers no she asked drugs no any cocaine marijuana ecstasy high amounts of money no and directly after that ramp up she asked do you give me permission to check the car that's from the transcript of her body camera record at three  dollars the government argues that this style of questioning was permitted and that's absolutely correct it was permit it triple rodriguez could have used it to develop probable cause which he then could have used to justify consent to search detention or advising him of his right to refuse consent either through a form or by his head but simply telling him you can refuse cade sent but asking may i search the car she did not do any of those things therefore the district court clearly erred by finding that no course of procedures effected this interaction but that was not that the accusatory question by itself is not the only course or course of procedure that was employed it was amplified by the fact that  role but what happened in guevara miranda was that the other trooper stood behind the defendant briefly before moving away here trooper ramirez and rodriguez stood side by side throughout the questioning against but the accusatory questioning was further amplified by the misrepresentation that trooper rodriguez employed during the questioning specifically she said after telling him that during the nd conversation about the purchase history about the purchase of the car and his criminal history she said she thought she felt she had being called it she had been clear and she had discussed this with her partner that he that she had been clear and she had asked him something to the effect of do you think i have been unclear and he didn't she says to soriano he told me no i understood everything you told him you lied to me about your mom she goes on to explain why she thinks he lied about his criminal history and record three hundred and ninety six to ninety seven she did not pause to give him a chance to respond to her tone in that questioning it's clear she was done asking questions she was making accusations the district court erred in a couple of ways in interpreting this interaction st the district court found that she meant by her to seek merely to clarify to soriano what was going on but deceiving a person and telling that person this person says to me they understand it does not help the rd person mr soriano understand it all more importantly it's contradicted by her testimony on the record when asked what she meant to this when asked about this interaction this deceit of soriano she said she meant to communicate that her partner was quote seeing the same things i was confused i haven't looked at the video maybe the course of nature of it is as you think clearer from the video itself than in the printed words but on the on the f your honor my argument is that she wasn't so much she wasn't helping him to understand there's a clear point in the transcript where she says she said shifts from discussing the arrest history and the confusion arises directly before what i'm talking about the confusion comes in trooper and soriano explaining to trooper rodriguez well i thought you meant you know what something when you get arrested on the side of the road like for a ticket i didn't realize you met when there's an order of arrest and you go and turn yourself in after they conclude that conversation trooper rodriguez clearly shifts and says i have been clear she's making accusations now not asking questions and she says i told you this and you lied to me and she doesn't give him a pause she doesn't give him any chance to explain so he can't be understood as trying to resolve the conflict confusion but i think regardless the district court did find that she employed deceit but dismissed the ca deceit as not the kind of deceit that this court has previously disapproved in cavite this court found that consent induced by an officer is misrepresentation  affective there the misrepresentation was merely used to achieve a change in location specifically the officer was interacting with a person on the side of the road when it's wrecking and king and said i have a warning i'd like you to to be back yes your honor all right ok there's better thank you what i was doing was distinguishing that the misrepresentation used in cabot which was merely it used to achieve a change in location as opposed to the misrepresentation here which was used as part of this accusatory ramp up before asking for  because if you've used the term deceit several times and obvious it's purposeful so where in do you you know wood woods the translation into see here your honor trooper are you guys told soriano that she and her partner had had a conversation in which they concluded that he was being that she was being clear that he was lying and being nervous my argument is that increase the coersion of her accusatory questioning because she was saying it shared by this other partner of this other person who's standing next to me as well increasing the pressure on you to consent and this happened directly before asking for consent it's clear in the record that this accusatory questioning happened i think the cases clearly show that it was coercive but if the court rejects that argument the district court also clearly erred in did in discounting soriano's consent despite the fact that he knew incriminating evidence would be discovered that issue a court discount discounted it saying that it's not clear that soriano knew it would be discovered but that conflicts both with this killer it's prior holdings and with the record in this case this court has said that when a person gives a general consent in mendoza can solace that they expect all of the containers in their car to be search here soriano was asked may i search the car he responded search it that's a general consent but further from the record trooper rodriguez made clear throughout their interaction that she was suspicious from the beginning the from the st moment she saw it of the duffel bag and that she did not trust soriano she told accused him of lying at least three times and asked him to if there is any incriminating evidence in the car at least three times the district court's discounting of it saying that it's possible that the duffel bag would not be searched is belied by the fact that it was searched within five minutes of the search beginning soriano's consent despite the fact that he knew that incriminating evidence would be discovered because of it's easy to locate of because of it easy location clearly shows that there was not a voluntary consent in this case well we see lots of cases with stops in search where you know  go ahead and search so my point is we have a lot of cases roadside and so where of say asked may i consent person says yes officers begin to search and you know kind of there is an enemy tear in the back seat out so you know what is different or said different what's your best case didn't this scenario the fact that he said yes search isn't different from what i disillusioned thinking that that's gonna dispel or lessen the offices verb to want to search because i have said yes as opposed to oh no don't search you're on of the best case is roberts and from the th circuit in two thousand seven hundred and seventeen or this court approved  district court's finding of exactly that this factor cuts in the defendant's favor but referring to the other cases that the court is referring to in this court's cases dealing with when the court discounts that six factor it tends to give a reason such as in tompkins and guevara miranda where the court found there were other reasons that the defendant believed he was in trouble and therefore consented hoping for leniency here there was no reason in this case to think that sor apologize for making that inaccurate factual statement about the location of the other officer i'm very sorry about that appellant's main argument is that there was a course of police conduct in the statements of an independent constitutional violation and there is none here the general atmosphere here is not coercive it's only one trooper that speaking to soriano with the exception of one in e statement and that occurs when they're looking at all the gas containers in the in the trunk and actually they're all laughing about how much i mean yes containers on the truck he's not restrained he's not placed in the police car there are no threats it's a conversation by the side of the road and s to confront him with inconsistent statements is his statements words just me st says i'm going to visit my brother and then he says i'm going to visit my mother and then coming back to the next day and then she sees a large suitcase and says well i think you're coming back the next day and he says well i don't know if my mother is going to be home so he's going on a three hundred  to see his mother doesn't know whether he's going to be home and that kind of story invites some kind of challenge and further explanation confronting him with inconsistency is a means of investigation his main complaint is that after the trooper said to him that her questions have been clear she falsely claimed to have consulted her partner and that this is the kind of misrepresentation that was course and her exact statement was after recounting we've been speaking in spanish it was quote my thinking in the think you know my partner is the same ok she says quote my questions have been clear i asked him if i was being misunderstood or am i being confusing with you that you can't understand my questions he told me no i understand everything you told him she does not say that her partner believed or read that he was up to something illegal she's making the reference to a partner and confronting soriano with the statement oh when's the last time you've been arrested it was a year and a half ago and then she found out on the computer check it only been two months ago this isn't the kind of trickery that's been found to be  unwarranted in other cases and walker the officer asked a person other than the person who had run of the car for mission to search and knowing that he was unauthorized to consent and the court found that practice weighed against consent cavite actually cabot doesn't decide the issue of can sit it talks about it but it doesn't result that it's a case of an initial constitutional violation of lack of reasonable suspicion and that he may and that the officer may have involved the misrepresentation as the purpose of the list hating that was where they said we're going to relocate to the truck stop to give you warnings but really their purpose of relocating the truckstop was to continue questioning and webster which is kind of the case that that started that's also an initial constitutional violation where the the the trick was we're to go down to the station have coffee and the guy wanted to have coffee but he was actually ordered to bring in a person's thing was wellston for custodial questioning so that was a case of tricking him into an affective arrest this doesn't involve any kind of trickery as to the material matter what her partner as you state what is the charity of the misrepresentation or to use your friend's word of she saying my partner thinks that my questions have been clear because he's he he's asked when one of you been stopped and what have you been cited for us and then what have you been stopped and then she says when or have you ever been arrested and he doesn't he doesn't come clean with that and the purpose of my questions have been clear was that after she checked the computer and found that he'd been different kinds of trickery or other failure to be completely candid what exactly is the complete misstatement here and i think you are talking so that's all our seeking for and that and  t my point would be that it did not induce consent actually the consent occurred a minute and thirty eight seconds after that when to search the car retaining his identification documents was not course of the traffic stop and the reasonable suspicion inquiries were completed when the trooper suckin set were a stop is lawfully prolonged it's not coercive to retain documents and then also this case involves an actual request to search siri on his vehicle it's nothing like zavala which is relied on by appellant and was placed in the police car and then the trooper stated to the dispatcher in front of zavala we're going to take him to the to the checkpoint and then his request for consent was i'm going to take you to the checkpoint ok and here in this in our case it's do you give me permission to check the car and he says check it and then later when she says she says again about checking the car he again said it's like a nd chance for him to think about it his consent is is affirmative and it's and it's an ambiguous area he had already told the clothes or open the suitcase so that they could look at it and oh it's just close and then they went back to look at the trunk and the troopers actual belief was that there was drugs in the gas tank because there's so many yelling containers of gas and you usually run out of gas when you have drugs in the guesting so i don't think that the district court's analysis was clearly erroneous because his main interest their main interest was in the gas tank and he could have believed there be no further scrutiny for the back of clothes the courts finding here that there was no and that consent was voluntary here was not clearly w cross examination of trooper rodriguez i asked or you're telling him i had this conversation with my partner i said am i being clear am i not speaking spanish well and he said no i understood everything he said that's what you told him happened right answer yes question that's not what happened though right answer he was seeing the same things i was seeing another question so this what you're telling him now i've checked this over with my partner he thinks i'm being clear he we both think there's something strange going on here that's not true right no it was clear to trooper rodriguez in her testimony and it's true true clear in the video from her lack of pauses between discussing the clarity and accusing him of lying that a reasonable person in soriano's position would feel that the deceit extended to the fact that they both thought that he was lying and i think the record bears that out clearly mr stelmach argues that the primary interest of the officer is was in the gas tank but that was never expressed as soriano and it's also not borne out in the video they never searched the gas tank in the video but just to conclude the government's position and the government sites frequently to the idea that no single factor is dispositive here soriano was of average weight had an th grade education from mexico but he could talk to the officer he didn't actively obstruct their attempt to search his car the government's position is essentially as long as a person a motorist can't have an have a conversation with an officer and doesn't do something so uncooperative to stop them from searching the car thousand three hundred and six are the pages i'm relying on in my presentation the court today where she entered and those are the parts where she had a centrally says that her statements that she meant the rough but misrepresentation and to extend to  to the fact that soriano as lied and that she understood that her interaction and her questioning of soriano as a ramp up to her question to ask prior to her asking cross examination is sort of the silver bullet that's going to differentiate this case from just been a fact barren credibility borne determination emotion the one thing i'll add to the court's consideration in addition to that is the end of the transcript of her body camera which is three hundred and ninety nine to four hundred in the record where trooper rodriguez is asked sor and i think this really  soriano why were you so mysterious before and he answers the necessity he clearly understood it necessary to stop her from finding the incriminating evidence if he had if he knew he could a consent or felt able to do so to deny consent what has that shows that it was all in terry all right i just want to make sure i understand the army because as you well know you with their the court you know balances the six factors done find all the six factors in favor of the government but in fact found some factors you know in the favor of your client because back driven you cross examined and so forth and so that's why i want to be clear if you're saying record that when we look we're going to find that you brief in an argument we will examine it closely inside to soon as we can all right you may be excuse