A consensual encounter is simply the voluntary cooperation of a private citizen in response to non-coercive questioning by a law enforcement official. We cannot say on the record before us that the district court's findings on this question constitute reversible error. Officer Dyer was not required to inform Defendant that he was free to leave. Defendant in fact encouraged the encounter when he asked Officer Dyer about tourist attractions in the area after the officer had returned his documentation. B. Defendant next contends that even if he consented to Officer Dyer's questioning following the initial stop, he did not consent to Officer Dyer's search of his suitcase.
Valid consent is that which is freely and voluntarily given.
Whether a consent to search during a consensual encounter with a police officer is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. The burden is on the government to show that the consent was voluntary. In determining the scope of a defendant's consent, we ask what a reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the defendant and police officer. A defendant's silence and acquiescence may support a finding of voluntary consent. I don't want to necessarily look in it.