your argument now in the case of united states the officers were dispatched based upon a report of shots being fired in an upper apartment by the individuals reciting the lower part that was it silence that then somebody walking around up there onto the landing it's an upstairs apartment with the next year or staircase going up to a porch he came out he was taken into custody on the warrants inside during the pat down inside of his pocket was found a bullet ca g he was a ask questions about whether or not there was anyone else in the apartment in the so there was a small child asleep in the bedroom he appeared to be nine combative totally cooperative and responsive to the questions that were being  he was led down to the squad car and then officers went into the apartment to conduct a protective sweep now there is a absolutely no reason to believe that there was any danger to the officers at their point in  horrific scenario where there may be this gun in the apartment the child may be able to reach a gun in the apartment the child may then possess the gun in the gun might be loaded and then the kid may want to play cops and robbers  she translated the idea into i look guilty if i don't give consent now what makes it coercive is that the introduction of child protective services has absolutely nothing to do with trying to obtain consent to search unless it's being used as a course of care which in this case we believe it was an officer kayak couldn't recall whether or not he posts things he said light doesn't sound like something i would say but he couldn't recall again because of the fuzzy memory and i'm not sure why that is he couldn't recall having said it she was also taken to the station and he couldn't recall whether or not she had been told that she would be taken to the station that's certainly something that if she was told and true to keep the record clear she couldn't recall whether she was told that either but she was very clear about being told that it would look better for her if she were to give consent it would make her look less guilty in the eyes of both child protective services b c up us as well as the police now or the other thing that makes it inherently coercive is because you take a young mother a young father for that matter and you tell them that d c up us is being called in a situation where your young child is in an apartment in the gun gets fired the st thing that comes to mind in that individual is i'm going to lose my child because you could understand your rights you could be extremely well versed and in very comfortable in the situation of what your rights are and i believe that counsel will and briefs and in argument will tell you she was educated she could read and write she was found think about the other things that officer said it will say if you cooperate the criminal justice system is likely to go easy on you or right if you don't cooperate we're going preclude a voluntary consent when those other things which also increase the pressure to make a decision don't i believe me when you were talking to an individual about losing a child v operating them an option to cooperate in exchange for leniency for what could be perceived as your own criminal conduct although in this case there really was no criminal conduct part and she was never charged what robbers with this gun but you can't know that no one can know that except perhaps the mother told the police of going inside and looked well then there's never going to be a situation where there is an on reasonable protective sleep in th even if the truth were even if it turns out that inside the trial was playing with a loaded gun to your honor's question a i think i understand that there would be very little or no nexus between it by using her at all in an effort to try to obtain consent that the c f s is being called the two have nothing to do with each other unless it's being used as a course of tactic now the district court found credibility you sound like you defendant argues that mckinney's consent to search was tainted by illegal protective sweep as a factual matter however the district court found that not to be the case because she knew that they had gone in the apartment to retrieve her son but that was  contacted as the district court found no that the officers are mandated reporters that is an accurate statement of what they were going to do and what they did do providing her that information is not unduly coercive in addition  the child was already with mrs mckinney at the time this is not a case where they were threatening to take away her child or threaten to withhold her child there were some factual differences between what officer the officers testif mckinney testified to report i made those credibility determinations and found the officers testimony to be more credible and that conclusion is supported by the record and not clearly  defendant argues that bikini's consent was concise coerced by officer statement that not signing the consent form would make her look guilty and the district court found that no such statement was made and the record supports that finding even though officer  not remember every single statement that he made there was a nd officer that testified and that officer corroborated officer cryos testimony based on his general practice and said that that nd officer said he did not