Opinion ID: 171917
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The location of the search.

Text: Mr. Gonzalez cites a state court case which held that searches in the home have a strong presumption of being non-voluntary. “The home is where a person enjoys the highest expectation of privacy. . . . As such, the factors bearing on the voluntariness of a consent to search must be specially scrutinized.” Kutzorik v. State, 891 So.2d 645, 648 (Fla. App. 2005). However, we have held that the location of a search has only a “limited relevance” to the question of whether a police-citizen encounter is consensual. United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499, 1505 (10th Cir. 1994). Again, this is a factual issue. Officer Wolthuis said Mr. Gonzalez told him to “come in and look,” Doc. 55 at 20, and that he signed the consent form after having it read to him. The district court believed the officer’s testimony made under oath. We find no clear error.