The Hon. Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District o f 1 Oregon, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1580EM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the v. * United States District Court * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. John Lee Coffman, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circu it Judges, and PANNER, District Judge. 1

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Jo hn Coffman was charged with possession of ephedrine with the intent t o manufactur e methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1). The Distric t Court denied his motion to supp ress evidence seized from his home. Coffman pleadedThe Ho n. Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 2 Eastern District of Missouri. The Hon. Jean Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for th e 3 Eastern District of Missouri. -2- guilty, reserving the right to challenge the District Court’s evidentiary ruling. He now appeals that ruling. We affirm.
I.
The facts of the search and seizure are undisputed. In the course of tracking a fede ral drug fugitive, the government learned that Coffman was an associate of th e fugitive. Two deputy United St ates Marshals went to Coffman’s residence to question him about th e fugitive. Coffman invited them in. One deputy observed an empt y handgun holster on a chair and asked Coffman if there were any weapons or othe r persons in his home. He “replied there were none and invited the deputy to look fo r himself.” Stipulation and Plea Agreement at 10. While one deputy talked with Coffman, the other found “45,000 do sage units of ephedrine under the defendant’s bed and a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver under the defendant’s pillow,” id. (footnote omitted), which were then seized. Coffman was indicted for possession of eph edrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1), and possession of a firearm by a person convicte d of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppres s the drugs and gun, contending that they were unlawfully seized. On th e Magistrate Judge’s recomme ndation, the District Court denied the motion. Coffman 2 3 then pleaded guilty to the

drug-related count, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The gun-related count was dismissed. He was senten ced to 120 months of imprisonment.-3- II.
We hold that the District Court’s determination that Coffman had voluntaril y consented to the search of his home was not clearly erroneous. See United States v

. Miller , 20 F .3d 926, 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 886 (1994). Coffman’ s invitation to “ ‘go ahead

and look around,’ ” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 2, indicated consent. It was then the government’s burden to demonstrate by a pre ponderance of the evidence that this consent was voluntary. United States v. Miller , 20 F.3d at 930

. Here, neither “the ch aracteristics of the accused” nor “the details of the environment,” id. , evid enced involuntariness. At the evidentiary hearing, the deputies testified tha t Coffman had not been “under the influence of any drugs or alcohol,” and that they had not made “any threats or promises to get him to give . . . permission to search th e residen ce.” Hr’g Tr. at 15. Nor does the Fourth Amendment require the deputies t o have inf ormed Coffman of his right to withhold consent to the search. Ohio v

. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421 (1996).
Coffman further argues that the search exceeded the scope of his consent. However, there was no evidence that he told th e deputies to limit their search to certain areas, or for people only. He said, “ ‘[G]o ahead and look around. You won’t find a thing.’ ” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 2. We cannot agree that “the typical reasonable pe rson” would have understood Coffman to be permitting only a limited search. Se e United Sta

tes v. Martel-Martines , 988 F.2d 855, 858 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Florida v. Jimeno , 50 0 U.S. 248 (1991)). It was not clear error for the Magistrate Judge to find, and th e District Court to agree, that Coffman’s “consent to search was broad an d unlimited.” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 8.
We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court.-4-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.