Opinion ID: 4417738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review legal conclusions de novo and defer to the district court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Bell, 925 F.3d 362, 369 (7th Cir. 2019). Because the firearm was not found during the initial sweep of the house, but only after McKinney consented to a complete search, the sole issue on appeal is whether her consent was voluntarily given. That question depends on the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973); United States v. Thurman, 889 F.3d 356, 367 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 278 (2018). As an initial matter, the district court correctly recognized and considered the factors typically used to assess voluntariness—McKinney’s age, intelligence, education, whether she was advised of her rights, the extent and duration of any custody or physical coercion, and whether the consent was immediately given. See Schneckloth, 414 U.S. at 226; United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 222 (7th Cir. 2018). The court correctly found these factors all weigh in the government’s favor. McKinney is an adult with a high-school education and, so far as the record shows, ordinary intellect. Neither she nor her son was in custody or under any immediate threat of detention or physical force. She signed the written consent form immediately upon request, albeit without reading it. The district court further found that the entire conversation lasted less than 15 minutes. And though no witness could recall whether McKinney was told she could refuse consent, she herself testified that she knew of her right, which she also could have confirmed by reading the form. Despite this evidence of voluntary action, Spates contends McKinney’s consent was invalid. First, he argues the officers’ statements to McKinney were coercive. But the district court permissibly credited the officers’ testimony that they had made no threats, and all Spates offers to show clear error is that the officers admitted that their recall was imperfect. At oral argument on appeal, counsel highlighted that none of the officers remembered that they had taken McKinney to the police station that night. But McKinney similarly admitted her recollection was imperfect; and as counsel candidly acknowledged, she too forgot about her trip to the station. When a district court is presented with divergent accounts, neither of which is facially implausible, the court is entitled to make a credibility determination to which we will defer. United States v. Thurman, 889 F.3d 356, 366 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 278 (2018). We do so here. Under the circumstances as the court found them to be, we cannot say McKinney’s consent was involuntary. The officers’ truthful statements that they were No. 18-3714 Page 5 mandated to report to DCFS were not coercive threats, and McKinney’s “rightful concern for [her] family did not amount to psychological pressure,” United States v. Santiago, 428 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Spates also argues McKinney’s consent was tainted by the earlier sweep, which he contends was an illegal search. But even if the sweep were illegal, there is no factual basis for Spates’s argument. McKinney’s own testimony contradicts the premise that the sweep influenced her decision to consent. She was not in the apartment at the time and she was not aware that officers had performed a sweep of the apartment. Instead, she inferred that officers had entered her apartment because they had retrieved her son. Though she knew that the officers believed that there was a gun in the apartment, she was never told that they had found a gun or even the drugs, and she disavowed knowledge of anything more than their “inclination that they thought there was a weapon.” McKinney’s understanding of the sweep was so limited that it could not have pressured her to consent, and she never testified that it did. AFFIRMED