Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): jokingly stated he had heroin at home but not in his vehicle. Before requesting consent, the officer stated Vargas-Miranda that their conversation was consensual. Vargas-Miranda responded, “Go ahead,” but nonetheless pointed out that the officer had “no right” to conduct the search. Deputy Sheriff Brown repeated that their communications were consensual, and stated that he was “just asking” for consent to search the vehicle. The exchange occurred in a public place. Deputy Sh onsent by stating the officer had no right to search the vehicle, this statement cannot be construed as an “unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal,” especially considering the Vargas-Miranda thereafter watched the search and raised no objection. U.S. v. Martel-Martines, 988 F.2d 855, 858 (8th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). Lopez-Mendoza argues that even if 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his bedroom based upon evidence that defendant 1 did not contest the fact that he had voluntarily given verbal consent to the search 2 did not appear to be nervous or scared and was cooperative with the officers 3 led officers to his bedroom and 4 was present for the search and did not indicate at any time that he wished to revoke his consent (B) holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent (C) holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure (D) holding that defendants consent to search his person while on board an interstate bus was voluntary even though the police did not tell the defendant of his right to refuse consent (E) holding defendants act of watching in silence as the officers examined his truck on a hoist lowered it and prepared to puncture the sheet metal that covered the secret compartment defeated any claim that he withdrew his consent or believed the search exceeded the scope of his consent
Output (English): holding that defendants consent to search his person while on board an interstate bus was voluntary even though the police did not tell the defendant of his right to refuse consent