system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Brown did not promise or misrepresent anything, and made no threats to secure Vargas-Miranda’s further cooperation or his consent. The officer merely asked if there were any drugs in the vehicle, and when Vargas-Miranda denied possession of drugs, asked, “You care if I look and see?,” his accompanying hand gestures further conveying the meaning of his question. Vargas-Miranda was not under arrest. His drivers license and the vehicle insurance card had been returned. Vargas-Miranda and Lopez-Mendoza watched the search and neither defendant asked or indicated that the search should be stopped. Under the totality of these circumstances, I conclude Vargas-Miranda voluntarily consented to the search of the Dodge Magnum. See e.g., United States v. Carrate, 122 F.3d 666, 670 (8th Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>) Although Vargas-Miranda claims he withdrew his Options: A. holding the defendant voluntarily consented to the search where despite his limited ability to speak english and the troopers failure to use a written consent form or advise the defendant of his right to refuse consent the defendant understood and appropriately answered the troopers questions had been detained for only a short amount of time before consenting was not threatened or physically intimidated and no promises or misrepresentations were made was not under arrest when he consented was on a public interstate and he stood idly by while the troopers searched his car never indicating that he objected to the search B. 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 C. holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search and the patdown of his person did not exceed the scope of his consent which included a search of the groin area D. holding that because the individual was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage that consent was tainted by the illegality E. 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

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the defendant voluntarily consented to the search where despite his limited ability to speak english and the troopers failure to use a written consent form or advise the defendant of his right to refuse consent the defendant understood and appropriately answered the troopers questions had been detained for only a short amount of time before consenting was not threatened or physically intimidated and no promises or misrepresentations were made was not under arrest when he consented was on a public interstate and he stood idly by while the troopers searched his car never indicating that he objected to the search