Opinion ID: 1289889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Atoui Voluntarily Consented

Text: [T]o justify a search by consent, the government must prove by `clear and positive testimony' that the asserted consent was `voluntary' and `unequivocally, specifically, and intelligently given.' United States v. Buckingham, 433 F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380, 385-86 (6th Cir.1999)). The officers spoke with Atoui at her house to obtain her consent to search. Also present were Puzai and Atoui's daughter, who was approximately sixteen years old. Agent Howe testified that [o]bviously [Atoui's] native language is not English, but she was able to give her name in English and [the officers] had help with the interpretation from her daughter at the time . . . who helped [them] translate more specific[ally] about the consent search. (JA 102-03.) Agent Howe also stated that Puzai might have helped a little with translation, but the majority of the help came from the daughter of Ms. Atoui. (JA 118.) There was no doubt, Agent Howe testified, that Atoui had English ability. (JA 126.) When asked whether it appeared that she understood what was going on, Agent Howe responded, Fully? (JA 103.) Yet he explained that her demeanor was cooperative, understanding. (JA 103.) Agent Howe then explained that she signed the consent form, and she was not threatened or forced in any way to do so. He further testified that Atoui nodded her head in understanding and said [']I understand['] and she could speak English and write in English and [the officers] asked her daughter[,] who spoke English just fine[,] to interpret for her and she did. (JA 127.) Officer Cosenza testified similarly. He explained that Atoui understood what the officers were saying and did not appear upset or distraught. Officer Cosenza further explained that they had no problem communicating and she spoke, although broken, [they] understood each other, no problem. (JA 141.) He further stated that Atoui's daughter did no interpretation for [him]. (JA 144.) He and Atoui had a conversation, and [he] didn't need interpreting, [he] understood her just fine and she understood [him] just fine. (JA 144.) The district court accordingly found that the testimony was that Ms. Atoui was able to communicate in English without significant assistance on the part of either her daughter or the family-member confidential informant who was standing by and that her demeanor was calm, that there were no threats or coercion employed and that they explained to Ms. Atoui the purpose for their request to search the premises on Steadman. (JA 153.) Additionally, the court explained that the officers further testified that . . . Atoui provided them with a key and permission to search the property. (JA 153.) The court then stated that the totality of the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that the consent by Mrs. Atoui was in fact voluntarily given, not the result of threat or coercion either expressed or implied and that she was sufficiently understanding of the request to consent. . . . (JA 154.) Ayoub argues, however, that the Government failed to show valid consent. He notes that, although Agent Howe testified that Atoui's daughter translated, Officer Cosenza testified that he was able to communicate directly with Atoui. Ayoub further notes that Puzai testified that he translated the consent form to Atoui. Ayoub also contends that because the consent form was in English, its validity is questionable. He additionally explains that Atoui's daughter later testified at trial that Atoui was scared and shaking and never spoke directly to the officers. (JA 629.) Ayoub's contentions fail because the district court's decision that Atoui validly consented was based on credibility determinations of the witnesses. See United States v. McNeal, 955 F.2d 1067, 1071 (6th Cir. 1992) (The trial court's decision was expressly anchored in credibility evaluations of witnesses who testified during the suppression hearing, and accordingly is beyond appellate review.). In short, the court credited the officers' accounts that Atoui understood that she was consenting to the search. And Officer Cosenza's testimony that Atoui's daughter did not translate for him is not necessarily contradictory to Agent Howe's testimony that she did some translating during the discussion. Moreover, regardless of the extent to which the daughter translated, there was sufficient testimony that Atoui understood what was occurring. The district court reasonably concluded that Atoui's consent was voluntary and unequivocally, specifically, and intelligently given.