T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. ANT HONY R . RO M E RO , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3092 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 0 8 0 - 0 1 - W EB)

(D . K a n .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O' BR I EN , HOLL OW AY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndant - A ppel l antA nthonyR . R om er o w as convi ct ed bya j uryof thr ee count s of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance i n vi ol at i on o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d sen tenc ed to 1 6 0 m o n ths in p ri so n . M r. R o m ero appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence r el at ed t o t he thi r d count– s peci fi cal l y , the coc ai ne found dur i ng an A pr i l 10, 2005 pol i ce sear ch o f a cl osetcon t ai ning M r. R om ero’ s pers on al belongings. W e exerci se j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and AF F I RM .-2- I . BA CKGROUND A tappr oxi m at el y2: 00 A . M . on A pr i l 10, 2005, W i chi t a, K ans as pol i ce offi cer s r es ponded t o a ca l l fr om a nei ghborr eport i ng a domest i c di s turbance at 1802 Sout h M adi s on. Ser geantE s pi noza w as one of a tl eas tfi ve off i cer s w ho r es ponded t o t he domest i c di s turbance cal l . Sgt . E s pi noza w as s t andi ng out s i de the r es i dence w hen he s aw M r . R om er o, a H i s pani c mal e, runni ng s outhbound on a n a djo in in g stre e t. S g t. E sp in o z a fo llo w e d M r. R o m e ro a n d fo u n d h im h id in g in bu shes. D raw i ng his gu n, S gt. E spi no za ordered M r. R om ero out of t he b ushes, p a tte d h im d o w n , a n d in s tru c te d h im to s it o n th e c u rb . A l though Sgt . E s pi noza w as abl e t o conver s e w i th M r . R om er o, he t es t i fi ed atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng thatM r . R om er o’ s E ngl i s h w as notverygood and he had expe r i ence d s om e di ffi cul tycomm uni cat i ng w i th hi m . Sgt . E s pi noza c al l ed fora Spani s h- s peaki ng offi cert o come t o the r es i dence due t o the pos s i bi l i tyt hat the r es i dent s of the hous e di d nots peak Engl i s h w el l and t o m ake s ur e he w as

“ c o v e rin g a ll th e b a se s.” M o re o v e r, S g t. E sp in o z a tes tifie d th a t M r. R o m e ro d id nots m el l of al cohol and hi s demeanorand ac t i ons di d noti ndi cat e thathe had b e e n d ri n k in g . M r. R o m e ro fa lse lyid e n tifie d h im se lf a s “ Jo se G o n z a les .” H e to ld S g t. E s pi noza thathe and hi s br otherhad bee n i nvol ved i n a barfi ghtand thathe w as ru n n in g f

ro m p e o p le w h o h a d inju re d h is b ro th e r. M r. R o m e ro c laim e d th a t h is b ro th e r w a s a t a n e a rb yre sid e n c e , b u t h e c o u ld n o t re m e m b e r w h ich h o u se . S g t.-3-

E s pi noza c al l ed di s pat ch t o ver i fythi s acc ountand w as i nform ed thatno d istu rba n ce h ad b ee n rep o rt ed fro m an y b ar in the are a. A t th is t im e, O fficers B o o n e a n d S h e lto n a rriv e d o n th e sc e n e a n d sta y e d w ith M r. R o m e ro w h ile S g t. E s pi noza r eturned t o t he r es i dence , w her e no one ha d y etgai ned ac ces s t o the hous e. A ft ers ever al ot heroffi cer s knocked on the doorand w i ndow s of the r es i dence , M s . M i chel l e M ont oy a eve ntual l yans w er ed and l ett he off i cer s i nt o t he res i den ce. T he o ffi cers qu i cklycheck ed the r esi den ce and determ i ned t hat M s. M o n to y a a n d th re e c h ild re n w e re th e o n ly o n e s p re s e n t in th e re s id e n c e . M e a n w h ile tw o b lo c k s a w a y , O ffice r B o o n e a sk e d M r. R o m e ro fo r h is nam e and date of birth. M r. R om ero r espon ded t hat hi s nam e w as “Jose G o n za les” a n d that h e w as b o rn A p ri l 27 , 1 9 7 8 . O fficer B o o n e a lso a sk ed M r. R o m e ro if

h e h a d e v e r b e e n in ja il a n d M r. R o m e ro a n s w e re d a ffir m a tiv e ly. O ffi cerB oone r an the name “J os e G onzal es ” thr ough t he SPI D E R i dent i fi cat i on database t o ch eck if there w ere anyou t st and i ng w arr ants . H ow ever, t he d at abase di d notl ocat e anyi ndi vi dual bythatname. A tt he s uppr es s i on hear i ng, O ffi cer B o o n e tes tifie d th a t h e a sk e d M r. R o m e ro h is n a m e a t lea st th re e tim e s d u rin g th is encount er , and al l thr ee t i m es , M r . R om er o i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “J os e G onzal es . ” M r . R om er o al s o t ol d O ffi cerB oone the s ame accountof how hi s br otherw as inju re d a n d th a t h is b ro th e r w a s in a n e a rb yh o u s e . S g t. E sp in o z a ra d io e d O ffice r B o o n e re q u e stin g h im to a sk M r. R o m e ro if he w as w i l l i ng t o come t o t he r es i dence att he 1800 bl ock of M adi s on. O ffi cer-4-

B o o n e d rov e M r. R o m ero ap p rox im atelytw o b lock s to the reside n ce . M r. R om er o r ode i n t he bac k of the patr ol car , butO ffi cerB oone di d nothandcuff h im . A t th e re side n ce , the o fficers co n ti n u ed their att em p ts t o asc ertain M r. R om er o’ s i dent i ty . A ft erbei ng i nform ed thathe coul d fac e cha r ges forgi vi ng t he offi cer s a fa l s e name, M r . R om er o i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “V i ct orG onzal es ” and s ta te d th a t h is d a te o f b ir th w a s J u ly 7 , 1 9 7 8 . A tS gt. E spi no za’s request , M s. M on t oy a agreed to com e ou tof the ho use t o s ee i f s he coul d i dent i fyM r . R om er o. M s . M ont oy a i dent i fi ed M r . R om er o as h e rb o y f r i e n d , An th o n yRo me r o . S g t . Es p i n o z a wa s fa mi l i a rwi th t h e n a me “A nthonyR om er o” fr om hi s pr evi ous w or k i n the N ar cot i cs D i vi s i on, and co n seq u en tl y , su sp ec ted M r. R o m ero o f d ea li n g d rug s. H o w ev er, M r. R o m ero s t eadfas t l ym ai nt ai ned thathi s name w as “V i ct orG onzal es , ” and not“A nthony R om ero. ” T he o ffi cers ran the n am e “A nthonyR om ero” i n the SP ID E R database and det erm i ned thatther e w er e tw o out s t andi ng fel onyarr es tw arr ant s . U pon l earni ng of the out s t andi ng w arr ant s , t he off i cer s handcuffed M r . R om er o i n the back of the patr ol car . W hen M r . R om er o s t i l l i ns i s t ed he w as not“A nthony R om er o, ” the off

i cer s as ked hi m w hetherhe had a nyi dent i fi cat i on i ns i de the r es i dence . M r . R om er o cl ai m ed thathe thoughthe mi ghthave s om ethi ng i ns i de the hous e pr ovi ng thathe w as , i n fac t , “V i ct orG onzal es . ” I ns i de the r es i dence , Sgt . E s pi noza i nform ed M s . M ont oy a thathe s us pect ed M r . R om er o of havi ng drugs i n the hous e and a s ked forherperm i s s i on-5-

to sea rch the h o u se. M s. M o n toy a a g ree d , b u t exp resslystat ed that M r. R o m ero k ep t his be lon g ing s in a clos et an d that the o fficers w o u ld h av e to g et M r. R o m e ro ’s p e rm iss io n to se a rc h th a t ar e a . S g t. E sp in o z a re tu rn e d o u tsid e a n d to ld M r. R o m e ro th a t th e yn e e d e d to e sta b lish h is id e n titya n d re q u e ste d p e rm iss io n to sear ch h i s bel on gings i n the cl osetfor i den t i fi cat i on . A ccordi ng t o the officer s, M r . R om er o agr eed t o t he s ear ch. A l though Sgt . E s pi noza w ant ed t o s ear ch for d ru g s in a d d iti o n to th e id e n tific a tio n , h e d id n o t in fo rm M r. R o m e ro o f h is s u s p ic io n s re g a rd in g d ru g a c tiv ity. A ft erobt ai ni ng M r . R om er o’ s or al cons ent , Sgt . E s pi noza be gan s ear chi ng M r. R o m e ro ’s c lo s e t w h ic h w a s lo c a te d in a h a llw a yb e tw e e n tw o b e d ro o m s . I ns i de the cl os et , ther e w er e s om e cl othes on hanger s and s om e cl othes fol ded on s hel ves . B egi nni ng w i th t he t op s hel f, Sgt . E s pi noza be gan l i ft i ng up t he fol ded s hi r t s , l ooki ng underneath, and fe el i ng anypocket s t o s ee i f theycont ai ned i dent i fi cat i on. I n betw een the fol ded cl othes , Sgt . E s pi noza di s cover ed a w hi t e, n o n -tra n sp a re n t, “W a l-M a rt typ e ” sh o p p in g b a g . O p e n in g th e sh o p p in g b a g , S g t. E s pi noza s aw a cl earpl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng w hatappea r ed t o be r ocks of cr ack- coca i ne. A ft erfi ndi ng the bag, Sgt . E s pi noza c ont i nued t o s ear ch the cl os et fo r id e n tific a tio n . H e fo u n d v a rio u s ite m s in c lu d in g a p o lice c itatio n iss u e d to

“ A n th o n yR o m e ro ” a n d p a ys tu b s b e a ri n g th e s a m e n a m e . O n M a y3 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. R o m e ro w a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f u n law f u lly pos s es s i ng, w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, fi ftygr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e cont ai ni ngO n Sept ember21, 2005 i n a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent , M r . R om er o w as 1 char ged w i th t hr ee c ount s : ( 1) pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e 427 gr ams of m ar ij uana on D ece m ber12, 2003; ( 2) pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e 5, 235 g ra m s o f

m a riju a n a o n Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 ; an d (3 ) p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e on A pr i l 10, 2005. T hi s appea l i s l i m i t ed t o r evi ew i ng th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f M r. R o m e ro ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e re late d to C ount3. -6- det ect abl e amount s of coc ai ne bas e. M r . R om er o fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he 1 c o c a i n e , a r g u i n g th a tth e p o l i c e o ffi c e r s u n l a wf u l l ys e a r c h e d t h e c l o s e t . On S ep tem b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the d istri ct co u rth eld a n ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g o n M r. R om er o’ s M ot i on t o Suppr es s . Sgt . E s pi noza, O ffi cerB oone, and anotheroffi cer w ho r es ponded t o t he domest i c di s turbance cal l , O ffi cerI zza r d, t es t i fi ed att he h e a ri n g . M r. R o m e ro a n d M s . M o n to y a a ls o te s tifie d . F oll ow i ng the d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of M r. R om ero’ s M oti on t o S up press , M r. R o m e ro sto o d trial. O n D e c e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 5 , the ju ryfo u n d M r. R o m e ro g u ilty on al l thr ee c ount s . T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M r . R om er o t o a t erm of 160 m o n th s in p ri s o n . M r. R o m e ro tim e ly f ile d th is a p p e a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON In re v iew in g a d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss , w e c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent( as t he pr evai l i ng par ty ) and ac ceptt he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n le s s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Uni t ed Stat es v. Trot t er , 4 8 3 F .3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A fin d in g is c lea rlye rro n e o u s w h e n it i s “w ith o u t fac tual su p p o rtin the rec o rd o r w e a re left w ith the d efinit e a n d firm convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been made. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C er nobyl , 255 F. 3dA s J us t i ce J acks on cogent l yexpl ai ned, t he r at i onal e under l y i ng the 2 F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s re q u ire m e n t o f a w a rra n t is th a t th e d e ter m in a tio n a s to “[w ]hen t he ri gh tof p ri vacym ustreas on ablyy i el d to the ri gh tof search i s, as a rul e, t o be dec i ded bya [ne utr al and det ache d] j udi ci al offi cer , notbya pol i ceman orG overnm entenfor cementagent . ” Johns on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 333 U . S. 10, 13- 14 (1 9 4 8 ). -7- 1215, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he ul t i m at e ques t i on o f th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f a s e a rc h , h o w e v e r, i s re v ie w e d d e n o v o . Trot t er , 483 F. 3d at698. T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t g u a ra n tee s “ [ t]h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in thei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and se izu re s . . . .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . IV . In d e e d , “p h y sic a l en tryin to th e h o m e is the chi ef e vi l agai ns tw hi ch the . . . Four th A m endmenti s di r ect ed. ” Wels h v. Wisc o n sin , 466 U . S. 740, 748 ( 1984) ( quot i ng United S tates v. U. S. D ist . C ou rt f orE . D is t . of

Mi ch. , 40 7 U . S . 29 7, 31 3 (197 2)) . A ccordi ng l y , w arr antl ess s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s c o n d u c te d in s id e a h o m e a re p re s u m p tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . P ayton v. New York , 4 4 5 U .S . 5 7 3 , 5 8 6 (1 9 8 0 ); Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 35 7 U. S. 49 3, 49 7-98 (1958 ). N evertheles s, t he F ou rth A m end m ent al l ow s the w arr antl ess 2 s ear ch of a hom e w hen l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s obt ai n the vol unt arycons entof a n in d iv id u a l w ith a c tu a l o r a p p a re n t a u th o ri ty. G eorgi a v. R andol ph , 54 7 U. S. 103, 109 ( 2006) ( ci t i ng Il l i nois v. R odr iguez , 497 U . S. 177, 181 ( 1990) and Sc h n e c k lo th v . B u sta m o n te , 4 1 2 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 (1 9 7 3 )) . O n appea l , M r . R om er o cl ai m s t hathe di d notcons entt o the s ear ch of the-8-

cl os et . A ddi t i onal l y , M r . R om er o cont ends t hatanycons entgi ven w as i nvol unt arybeca us e: ( 1) he w as i n pol i ce c us t odyand handc uffe d i n the bac k of a p a tro l ca r a t th e tim e o f h is a lleg e d c o n se n t; (2 ) h e h a d b e e n d rin k in g h e a v ily p rio r to th e in c id e n t; an d (3 ) h e w a s d e c e iv e d b yth e p o lice o ffice r w h o to ld h im theyw ere l oo king fo r i den t i fi cat i on and fai l ed to i nfo rm him of the real pu rpose o f th e s e a rc h , i . e. , t o l ook fordrugs . Fi nal l y , M r . R om er o ar gues t hatt he off i cer exce eded the s cope of hi s al l eged c ons entt o s ear ch fori dent i fi cat i on byopeni ng an opaque s hoppi ng bag i n w hi ch the coc ai ne w as ul t i m at el yfound. E ach of th e se a rg u m e n ts la c k s m e rit. A . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt D i d N ot C l earl y E rr i n F i ndi ng t hat M r. R omer o G av e t he O ffi c e r s C ons e nt t o Se ar c h. A fter h o lding an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , the d istri ct co u rtfo u n d that M r. R o m e ro “ u n e q u iv o c a lly ” g a v e S g t. E sp in o z a c o n se n t to se a rc h th e c lo se t. R . V o l. I , D oc. 25 at6- 7. N otw i ths t andi ng M r . R om er o’ s cl ai m att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng thathe neve rgave the off i cer s perm i s s i on t o s ear ch fori dent i fi cat i on, t he d istri ct co u rtfo u n d that d u ri n g h is A u g u st 2, 20 0 5 interrog ati o n b yp o li ce , M r. R o m e ro sta ted th a t h e c o u ld n o t re m e m b e r w h e th e r h e g a v e o ffice rs p e rm iss io n to s ear ch . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound thatSgt . E s pi noza’ s t es t i m onyw as m o re c re d ib le th a n th a t o f M r. R o m e ro o n th e is s u e o f c o n s e n t. T he governm entbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng, bya pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e , th a t u n e q u iv o c a l a n d s p e c ific c o n s e n t w a s o b ta in e d . Uni t ed Stat es v.-9-

G uerrero , 472 F. 3d 784, 789 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( r equi r i ng “cl earand pos i t i ve t es t i m onyt hatcons entw as unequi vocal and s peci fi c”) . “[T] he cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnesses and the w ei gh tt o b e given t he ev i den ce, t og et her w i th the i nferences, ded ucti on s and co nclusi on s t o b e draw n from the ev i den ce, are al l m at t ers m ost appr opr i at e forr es ol ut i on byt he di s tr i ctcour t . ” Id. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A ccord Uni t ed Stat es v. P ena , 920 F. 2d 1509, 1513 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( “A s s es s m ent o f th e c re d ib ili tyo f

w itn e ss e s is th e p re ro g a tiv e o f th e trial c o u rt, n o t an a p p e llate court , w hi ch nei thers ees norhear s the w i tnes s es . ”) A ccor di ngl y , det erm i nat i ons o f w itn e s s c re d ib ility w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s .

“ T h is h o ld s p a rticu lar lytru e w h e re , as h e re , the c re d ib ili tyo f w itn e ss e s is i m por t anton the i s s ue of vol unt ar i nes s [of c ons entt o s ear ch] . ” G uerrero , 472 F .3 d a t 7 8 9 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). M r . R om er o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on r egar di ng Sgt . E s pi noza i s cl ear l yerr oneous beca us e “[ o] n tw o occa s i ons , he w as u n tru th f u l to th e C o u rt .” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at9. W e d is a g re e . I n the fi r s tci t ed i ns t ance , w hi ch occ urr ed dur i ng the s uppr es s i on hear i ng, Sgt . E s pi noza t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on thathe found the coc ai ne i n a cl ear bag betw een folded cl othes i n the cl oset . C on traryt o M r. R om ero’ s ass ert i on s, Sgt . E s pi noza di d nott es t i fythatt he coc ai ne w as i n pl ai n vi ew as he s or t ed thr ough the fol ded cl othi ng. Subse quent l y , i n r es pons e t o m or e det ai l ed ques t i oni ng on cr os s - exami nat i on, Sgt . E s pi noza c l ar i fi ed thatt he cl earbag of-10-

coca i ne w as i ns i de a w hi t e, opaque “W al - M ar t - type” s hoppi ng bag. Such a c lar ifica tio n h a rd lyim p u g n s S g t. E sp in o z a ’s c re d ib ili ty . W e d isc e rn n o th in g in th is e x a m p le th a t w o u ld lea d u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n is c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . I n the s econd i ns t ance , M r . R om er o as s er t s t hatSgt . E s pi noza c ontr adi ct ed h im se lf re g a rd in g th e n e e d fo r a n in terp re ter . A t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , S g t. E sp ino za test ifi ed that h e h ad so m e d ifficu ltyco m m u n icati n g w ith M r. R o m ero b ec au se M r. R o m ero d id n o t spe ak E n g li sh w ell . T w o m o n ths later at M r. R o m e ro ’s tria l, S g t. E sp in o z a tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll h a v in g d ifficu lty c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith M r. R o m e ro . A f ter re v iew in g th e tra n sc rip t o f th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , h o w e v e r, S g t. E sp in o z a c o n c e d e d th a t in iti a llyh e d id h a v e so m e d ifficu ltyc o m m u n ica tin g w ith M r . R om er o. Y et , Sgt . E s pi noza c ons i s t ent l ym ai nt ai ned thathe ca l l ed the Spani s h- l anguage i nt erpr et ert o the r es i dence i n or dert o comm uni cat e w i th the i nd i vidual s i nsi de the ho use, no tM r. R om ero. T hese pu rport ed “incon si st encies ” in S g t. E sp ino za ’s t esti m o n yd o n o t sup p o rta c o n clus ion that the d istri ct co u rt c le a rl ye rr e d in fin d in g h is te s tim o n yto b e c re d ib le . In su m , inso fa r as itrests on S g t. E sp ino za ’s all eg ed lack o f v era city , M r. R om er o’ s chal l enge t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s w hol l yw i thout m e ri t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. C r uz - Mendez , 467 F. 3d 1260, 1266 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( s eei ng “no r eas on notto d efer to the co u rt ’s cred ibil ityd eterm ination ” w h ereM r. R o m e ro su g g e sts th a t itw o u ld d e f ylo g ic to b e liev e th a t h e w o u ld 3 h a v e g ra n ted c o n se n t u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s: “ [ t]h e re is n o lo g ica l re a so n to bel i eve thathe w oul d [cons ent ] i f [the cl os et ] cont ai ned coc ai ne. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r. at 1 5 . H o w e v e r, th e c a se law is re p lete w ith e x a m p les o f in d iv id u a ls cons ent i ng t o a s ear ch thatl at err evea l s evi dence of contr aband, att es t i ng t o the fa c t th a t p e o p le d o n o t a lw a y s b e h a v e lo g ic a lly. See , e . g ., Uni t ed Stat es v. Sawyer , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (co n sen su al sea rch o f d efen d an t’ s b u s in e s s re v e a le d s to le n m o to rc y c le e n g in e s ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 5 6 (20 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R os bor ough , 366 F. 3d 1145, 1148 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( cons ens ual s e a rc h o f

d e fe n d a n t’ s v e h ic le re v e a le d 3 0 p o u n d s o f c o c a in e ). -11- di s tr i ctcourtcr edi t s l aw enfor cementoffi cer ’ s t es t i m onyoverthatof defendant (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 0 2 7 (20 0 7 ). 3 F in a lly , M r. R o m e ro a rg u e s, fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l, th a t th e fa ilu re to pr ovi de a c ons ent - t o- s ear ch form s uppor t s gi vi ng hi m t he bene fi tof the doubtt hat he di d not , i n fac t , cons ent , unl es s t her e i s s om e j us t i fi cat i on forw hyt he cons ent w as notdocument ed . A s s uppor t , M r . R om er o ar gues t hat“[a ] s a mat t erof pol i cy , l aw enfor cements houl d be hel d t o a hi gherbur den of ve r i fi cat i on or document at i on w hen obt ai ni ng cons entt o s ear ch a home. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at 1 5 . M r. R o m e ro c ite s n o a u th o ri ty to u n d e rg ir d th is p ro p o s itio n , h o w e v e r. G ener al l y , abs entpl ai n err orr es ul t i ng i n m ani fes ti nj us t i ce, w e w i l l not c o n s id e r i s s u e s th a t a re ra is e d fo r t h e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G oode, 4 8 3 F . 3 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); United S tates v. O rr , 864 F. 2d 1505, 1 5 0 8 -0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). A n ye rr o r h e re is h a rd ly p la in . C ons enti s a fa ctual i s s ue t o be det erm i ned byt he t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , notbypers e rul es . I n otherw or ds , no one fa ct or– i ncl udi ng t heO n ap p ea l, M r. R o m ero d o es n o t argu e tha t his co n sen t w as in v o lun tary 4 b e c a u se o f

lan g u a g e b a rrie rs. A n y“ c o m m u n ica tio n b a rrie r” M r. R o m e ro re fe rs to inv o lves h is al lega ti o n that h e h ad b ee n d ri n k ing h ea v il y . M r. R o m ero ’s (c o n tin u e d ...) -12- ex ec u ti o n o f a co n sen t- to-sea rch fo rm – is dispo sit ive. Ind ee d , the S u p rem e C o u rt h a s tw ic e reje c te d p e r s e ru le s in d e te rm in in g th e v a lid ity o f a c o n s e n t to s e a rc h . S e e O h io v . R o b in e tte , 519 U . S. 33, 39- 40 ( 1996) ( r ej ect i ng rul e r equi r i ng “pol i ce o ffice rs to a lw a y s in fo rm d e tain e e s th a t th e ya re f re e to g o b e fo re a c o n se n t to se a rc h m a yb e d e e m e d v o lu n tar y ” ); Sc h n e c k lo th v . B u sta m o n te , 412 U . S. 218, 2 2 7 , 2 4 8 -4 9 (1 9 7 3 ) (rejec tin g ru le r e q u irin g in d iv id u a ls to b e in fo rm e d o f th e ir r i ghtt o r efus e cons ent ) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , ci t i ng R o b in e tte , the E ig h th C irc u it concl uded thata s i gned cons ent - t o- s ear ch form w as nota pr er equi s i t e for e s ta b lis h in g th e v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f c o n s e n t. Un itedS ta tes v . C a rr a te , 122 F. 3d 666, 670 ( 8th C i r . 1997) . A ccor di ngl y , M r . R om er o’ s new l y - s paw ned cont ent i on of e rr o rr e g a r d i n g th e o ffi c e r s ’ fa i l u r e t o g e th i s wr i t t e n c o n s e n ti s n o tp l a i n , a n d we th e re fo re w ill n o t co n sid e r it. B . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt D i d N ot C l earl y E rr i n F i ndi ng t hat M r. R o m er o V o lun tar il y C o n sen ted to th e S ea rc h o f the C lose t. M r. R o m e ro a lso c h a llen g e s th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g th a t h e v o lu n tar ily cons ent ed t o t he s ear ch cl ai m i ng t hat : ( 1) he w as i n cus t odyi n handcuffs i n the b a c k se a t o f

a p a tro l ca r; (2 ) h e h a d b e e n d rin k in g h e a v ilyp rio r to th e in c id e n t; and ( 3) he w as dece i ved bythe pol i ce offi cerw ho t ol d hi m offi cer s w er e l ooki ng fo ri d e n t i fi c a t i o n a n d d i d n o tm e n t i o n a n y s u s p i c i o n o f d ru g a c t i v i ty. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e n e e d fo r a n in terp re ter a ll b e a r o n th e iss u e o f S g t. E sp in o z a ’s c re d ib ili ty . It i s o n lyin h is re p lyb rie f th a t M r. R o m e ro se e m s to a rg u e th a t th e la n g u a g e b a rr ie r p ro v id e s a b a s is fo r fin d in g in v o lu n ta ry c o n s e n t. “Fai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue i n t he openi ng appel l at e br i ef w ai ves t hati s s ue. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B lack , 3 6 9 F . 3 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In a n yev en t, M r. R om er o’ s cont ent i on i s unper s uas i ve. T he di s tr i ctcourts peci fi cal l ynot ed that “[a ] l though t he defendantm aynotbe compl et el yfl uenti n E ngl i s h, t he evi dence p e rsu a d e s th e c o u rt th a t th e d e fe n d a n t u n d e rsto o d th e re q u e st, th a t h e w a s a b le to comm uni cat e hi s thought s t o t he off i cer , and he made a de ci s i on of hi s ow n fr ee w i l l t o gr antperm i s s i on t o s ear ch the cl os etforhi s i dent i fi cat i on. ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 2 5 a t 7 . T h e s e fin d in g s a re n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C ontr er as , 3 7 2 F .3 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 7 -7 8 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (fin d in g th a t d e fe n d a n t’s d ifficu lti e s w ith E n g lis h d id n o t p re v e n t h im f ro m v o lu n ta ri ly co n s e n tin g to a s e a rc h o f h is h o m e ). -13- T he governm entbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatt he i ndi vi dual vol unt ar i l ycons ent ed – “a bur den thati s not s at i s fi ed bys how i ng a mer e s ubm i s s i on t o a cl ai m of l aw ful author i ty . ” F l or i da v. R oyer , 460 U . S. 491, 497 ( 1983) . T he governm entm us tdemonstr at e that c o n s e n t w a s g iv e n w ith o u t d u re s s o r c o e rc io n , e x p re s s o r i m p lie d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B ut l er , 966 F. 2d 559, 562 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . T he ques t i on of w hetheran i ndi vi dual has vol unt ar i l ycons ent ed t o a s ear ch i s a ques t i on of fa ctthatthe d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t e v a lu a te u n d e r t h e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . R o b in e tte , 5 1 9 U .S . at 3 9 -4 0 ; Sc h n e c k lo th , 4 1 2 U .S . at 2 2 6 -2 7 ; s ee als o C r uz - Mendez , 467 F. 3d at1265 ( obs ervi ng thatvol unt ar i nes s of cons enti s a ques t i on of fa ctw hi ch is re v iew e d u n d e r th e h ig h lyd e fe re n tial c lea rly -e rro n e o u s s tan d a rd ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Sawyer , 441 F. 3d 890, 895 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “[T] he fe der al t es tfor det erm i ni ng t he val i di tyof cons entt o s ear ch r equi r es a fa ctual det erm i nat i on-14-

bas ed upon the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s of w hetherthe cons entw as the pr oductof an ‘ es s ent i al l yfr ee a nd uncons tr ai ned choi ce by[the] m aker ’ or w hetheri tw as t he pr oductof ‘ dur es s orcoer ci on, expr es s ori m pl i ed. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Sc h n e c k lo th , 4 1 2 U .S . a t 2 2 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 15 6 (2 0 0 6 ). F a c to rs to c o n sid e r w ith in th e to talityo f c irc u m sta n c e s in c lu d e :

• the thr eat ening presence o f several offi cers ; • the d i spl ayor brandis hing of w eapo ns; • so m e p h y sical t o u ch ing b yan o fficer; • us e of a ggr es s i ve l anguage ort one of voi ce i ndi cat i ng that c o m p l i a n c e w i th a n o ffi c e r ’ s r e q u e s ti s c o m p u l s o ry; • pr ol onged r et ent i on of per s onal effect s s uch as i dent i fi cat i on, pl ane or bus t i ckets ; • r eques tt o acc om panyoffi cert o the s t at i on; • i nt er act i on i n a nonpubl i c pl ace ; • abs ence of otherm ember s of the publ i c; • the admi ni s tr at i on of Mi r anda w arni ng s; • u se o f

p h y sic a l v io len c e ; • oral t hreat s; • p r o m i s e s , i n d u c e m e n t s , d e c e p t i o n , tr i c k e ry; • the phy s i cal and ment al condi t i on and capaci tyof the defendant ; and • w h e th e r th e p o lice in fo rm e d d e fe n d a n t o f th e rig h t to re f

u se c o n se n t. See G uerrero , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 7 9 0 ; Sawyer , 4 4 1 F .3 d a t 8 9 5 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez , 9 3 F .3 d 1 4 9 3 , 1 5 0 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A d d re ss in g M r. R o m e ro ’s first a rg u m e n t, th e fa c t th a t M r. R o m e ro w a s in c u s to d yis n o t d is p o s itiv e a s to th e v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f h is c o n s e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wats on , 423 U . S. 411, 424 ( 1976) ( “[T] he fa ctof cus t odyal one has n e v e r b e e n e n o u g h in itse lf to d e m o n stra te a c o e rc e d c o n fe ss io n o r c o n se n t to se a rc h .”). “ C o n se n t to se a rc h m a yb e v o lu n tar y , ev e n th o u g h th e c o n se n tin g p a rty-15-

i s bei ng det ai ned att he t i m e cons enti s gi ven. ” Un itedS ta tes v . D oy le , 129 F. 3d 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A ccord Uni t ed Stat es v. D oz al , 173 F. 3d 787, 796 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Un itedS ta tes v . So to , 988 F. 2d 1548, 1557 ( 10th C i r . 1993) (“ V a lid c o n se n t m a yb e g iv e n b ya p e rso n b e in g d e tain e d .”). A c o u rt m u st lo o k to al l the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe cons entt o s ear ch w as f re e ly g iv e n b ya n in d iv id u a l u n d e r a rr e s t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Shi elds , 573 F. 2d 1 8 , 2 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). A ppl y i ng the fa ct or s enumer at ed above , the di s tr i ctcour tfound that al though M r . R om er o w as i n cus t odyatthe t i m e he ga ve cons ent , the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s di d notw arr anta fi ndi ng thatM r . R om er o’ s cons entw as c o e rc e d . S p e c ifica lly , the c o u rt o b se rv e d th a t: the defendantw as on a publ i c s tr eeti n fr ontof hi s hom e . . . , and the offi cer s di d notus e anyovertdi s pl ayof for ce orcoer ci on t o gai n the cons ent . T he i nt er act i on betw een the off i cerand the defendantw as cor di al and court eous atthe t i m e of the r eques t . A nd al though the offi cer s di d noti nform the defendantt hathe had a r i ghtt o r efus e a s ear ch, the manneri n w hi ch the off i cers oughtcons entconvey ed that he w as s eeki ng the defendant ’ s perm i s s i on fora s ear ch and thatt he defe ndantw as notobl i gat ed t o gi ve cons ent . M or eover , t he evi dence s how s thatthe defendanti s a compet entadul tw ho under s t ood the c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d th e n a tu re o f th e o ffic e r’ s re q u e s t. R . V ol . I , D oc. 25 at7. I n ourvi ew , t he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ycons i der ed the fa ct th a t M r. R o m e ro w a s in c u sto d ya lo n g w ith th e re st o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s in c o n c lu d in g th a t M r. R o m e ro v o lu n ta ri ly co n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h . Second, M r . R om er o ar gues t hathi s heavydr i nki ng pr i ort o the i nci dent-16-

r ender ed hi s cons ent i nvol unt ary . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound that“des pi t e t es t i m ony of the defendantand hi s gi r l fr i end abouthow m uch al cohol t he defendantdr ank p rio r to th e in c id e n t, th e re is n o c re d ib le e v id e n c e th a t d e fe n d a n t’s a b ili tyto under s t and orm ake a vol unt arydeci s i on w as i m pai r ed t o anys i gni fi cantdegr ee byal cohol . ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 25 at7. O n appea l , M r . R om er o fai l s t o s how w hy th is c o n c lu s io n is c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . I n Uni t ed Stat es v. G ay , 774 F. 2d 368 ( 10th C i r . 1985) , w e hel d thatt he d e fe n d a n t v o lu n tar ilyc o n se n ted to th e se a rc h o f h is g lo v e b o x e v e n th o u g h h is d ru g in to x ica tio n m a d e h im slu r h is s p e e c h , sta g g e r, sw a y , an d u se h is v e h icle to s u p p o rt h im s e lf. Id . at 37 7 (reco g n izi n g “d iffe ren t deg ree s o f in tox icati o n ” w h ere an i ndi vi dual “ca n be t oo i nt oxi cat ed t o oper at e a mot orvehi cl e, butr at i onal enough t o under s t and r eques t s and t o gi ve pl aus i bl e expl anat i ons ”) . I n thi s cas e, M r. R o m ero u n d erstoo d an d resp o n d ed to S g t. E sp ino za ’s an d O fficer B o o n e’s ques t i ons and eve n offe r ed a na rr at i ve expl ai ni ng w hyhe w as runni ng dow n the str ee t. B o th o fficers also test ifi ed that theyd id n o t sm ell alco h o l on M r. R o m e ro ’s b re a th a n d th a t M r. R o m e ro ’s a c tio n s a n d d e m e a n o r d id n o t in d ica te thathe had be en dr i nki ng. A ccor di ngl y , t he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yw ei ghed the e v i d e n c e a n d d i d n o tc l e a r l y e r ri n fi n d i n g M r . R o m e r o ’ s c o n s e n tt o b e v o l u n t a r y, des pi t e hi s al l eged i nt oxi cat i on. T h i r d , M r . R o m e r o c l a i m s t h a tS g t . E s p i n o z a ’ s “ d e c e p t i o n ” a n d “ tr i c k e r y” reg ard ing the o bject of the s ea rch ren d ere d h is co n sen t i n v ali d . A p lt . O p en ing B r.M r . R om er o’ s ar gum entt hatSgt . E s pi noza w as fami l i arw i th an 5 in d iv id u a l b yth e n a m e o f “ A n th o n yR o m e ro ,” a n d th e re fo re , h a d n o n e e d to c o n firm M r. R o m e ro ’s id e n tityis b e lied b yth e fa c t th a t M r. R o m e ro ste a d fa stly m ai nt ai ned thathe w as notA nthonyR om er o. M or eover , even a ft erfi ndi ng the d ru g s , S g t . Es p i n o z a c o n t i n u e d t o l o o k fo ri d e n t i fi c a t i o n b e a r i n g t h e n a me “A nthonyR om er o. ” -17- at16- 17. W hen as s es s i ng the vol unt ar i nes s of cons ent , the us e of de cept i on or tr ic k e ry is o n e fa c to r t o b e c o n s id e re d in th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Sawyer , 441 F. 3d at895. H ow ever , underthe fa ct s pr es enther e, thi s fac t ori s of n o m o m e n t. Sgt . E s pi noza truthful l yt ol d M r . R om er o thathe w ant ed t o l ook forpr oof con fi rm i ng his i den t i ty . H e si m plydid not go fu rther and t el l M r. R om ero he als o w as l ooki ng forevi dence of drug- deal i ng. E ven i f thi s om i s s i on coul d be cons trued as evi nci ng dece i t , i tw oul d notbe the ki nd of dec ei tt hatw oul d have the c ap ac ityo n thes e fac ts t o ero d e the str o n g fo u n d ati o n o f M r. R o m ero ’s o th e rw is e v o lu n ta ry c o n s e n t. See Un itedS ta tes v . W h ite , 706 F. 2d 806, 807- 08 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t o ffice r’s su bjec tiv e in ten t to se a rc h fo r m o n e yd id n o t r e n d e r i n v o lu n ta ry a d e fe n d a n t’ s c o n s e n t to s e a rc h fo r d ru g s ). C f . Uni t ed Stat es v. K i m oana , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (“A lth o u g h the o fficers exec ut i ng the s ear ch w er e l ooki ng forw eapons r athert han the vehi cl e key , t he su bjecti v e m o ti v ati o n o f th e o fficers ex ec u ti n g the s ea rch is i rreleva n t. ”). 5 A ccor di ngl ythe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n i t s det erm i nat i on of v o lu n ta ri n e s s .-18-

C . The O ffi c e r s D i d N ot Ex c e e d t he Sc ope of M r . R omer o’ s C ons e nt in O p en ing u p th e P lastic S h o p p ing B a g in th e C lose t. M r . R om er o al s o ar gues thatSgt . E s pi noza e xcee ded the s cope of any a lle g e d c o n s e n t w h e n h e o p e n e d a n o p a q u e s h o p p in g b a g fo u n d in th e c lo s e t. “The sc ope of a s ear ch i s gener al l ydefi ned byi t s expr es s ed obj ect . ” F l or i da v. Ji m eno , 5 0 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 (1 9 9 1 ). A ccord K i m oana , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 3 . A ddi t i onal l y , “the s cope of the cons entdet erm i nes t he perm i s s i bl e s cope of t he s ear ch. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar quez , 3 3 7 F .3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A ccord United S tates v. West , 219 F. 3d 1171, 1177 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . I n det erm i ni ng t he s cope of the cons ent , court s appl yan obj ect i ve- r eas onabl enes s t es t : “[W ] hat w oul d the typi cal r eas onabl e per s on have unde r s t ood byt he exc hange be tw een the offi cerand the s us pect ?” Ji m eno , 5 0 0 U .S . at 2 5 1 (fin d in g it o bjec tiv e ly r eas onabl e forpol i ce t o concl ude thatgener al cons entt o s ear ch defendant ’ s car fordrugs i ncl uded cons entt o s ear ch pape rbag on fl oorof ca rw hi ch mi ght r e a s o n a b l yh a v e c o n t a i n e d d ru g s ) . M o r e o v e r , c o n s e n tt o s e a r c h fo rs p e c i fi c i t e ms in c lu d e s c o n se n t to se a rc h th o se a re a s a n d c o n tain e rs th a t m ig h t re a so n a b ly c o n ta in th o s e ite m s . Id . Fi nal l y , w hethera s ear ch r emai ns w i thi n the boundar i es of co nsent i s a quest i on of factt o b e determ i ned byt he tot al i tyof cir cum st ances, a n d a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fin d in g s w ill b e u p h e ld u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . See Ki m oana , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 3 ; West , 219 F. 3d at1177 ( “The courtdet erm i nes fr om the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s w hethera s ear ch r emai ns w i thi n the-19-

boundar i es of the cons ent , vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he g o v e rn m e n t.” ). I n thi s cas e, a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have unde r s t ood the exc hange betw een Sgt . E s pi noza a nd M r . R om er o t o m ean thatM r . R om er o w as gr ant i ng p e rm iss io n to se a rc h a n yw h e re in th e c lo se t fo r id e n tific a tio n . T h e p las tic s hoppi ng bag di s cover ed bySgt . E s pi noza i n the cl os etr eas onabl ycoul d have cont ai ned a r ece i pt or other i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on. M r . R om er o di s put es t hat o n e c o u ld rea so n ab lyb eli ev e tha t i d en ti fy ing info rm ati o n co u ld b e fo u n d w h ere S g t. E s p in o z a d is c o v e re d th e b a g – th a t is , a m o n g fo ld e d (p o s s ib ly cl e a n ) c lo th e s . B u t w e d o n o t s h a re M r. R o m e ro ’s d o u b t. S g t. E s p in o z a w a s fe e lin g th e p o c k e ts o f th e c lo th e s w h e n h e fo u n d th e b a g . C l othi ng pocket s r eas onabl ycoul d be vi ew ed as pos s i bl e l ocat i ons of i dent i fy i ng in fo rm a tio n . C

f . Mar quez , 3 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 8 -0 9 (h o ld in g it w a s o bjec tiv e ly rea so n ab le fo r po li ce to co n clud e tha t th e g en era l con sen t t o sea rch d efen d an t’ s r ecr eat i onal vehi cl e fordrugs and guns i ncl uded cons entt o s ear ch compar t m ent underbench s eatof vehi cl e w her e drugs and guns coul d r eas onabl yhave be en sto re d ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Ti r ado , 313 F. 3d 437, 440 ( 8th C i r . 2002) ( s ear chi ng defe ndant ’ s bedr oom cl os etand bag ha ngi ng i n the cl os etw as notbey ond s cope o f c o n se n t to se a rc h w h e re d e fe n d a n t d id n o t li m it th e sc o p e o f th e se a rc h o f

h is b ed roo m ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R am s tad , 308 F. 3d 1139, 1446- 47 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( uphol di ng offi cer ’ s r emoval of s peake rgr i l l cover s as notexce edi ng s cope of-20-

g e n e ra l co n se n t to se a rc h c a r); West , 2 1 9 F . 3 d at 11 7 8 (affirm ing d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n c l u s i o n th a tc o n s e n tg i v e n b yd e fe n d a n tt o s e a r c h c a rfo rd ru g s a n d fi r e a r ms re a so n a b lyin c lu d e d c o n se n t to se a rc h th e tru n k a n d th e c o n tain e rs w h ich c o u ld have c ont ai ned ei therdrugs orfi r earm s ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcl ear l yerri n fi ndi ng thatthe s ear ch w as w i thi n the s cope of M r. R o m e ro ’s c o n s e n t. I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n fi ndi ng thatM r . R om er o unequi vocal l yand vol unt ar i l ycons ent ed t o the s ear ch and that th e s e a r c h d i d n o te x c e e d th e s c o p e o f M r . Ro me r o ’ s c o n s e n t . T h e r e fo r e , we AF F I RM th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge