Opinion ID: 48268
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the purpose and the flagrancy of the initial misconduct.

Text: 34 Id. (citations omitted). 35 The district court held the initial raid and search constitutional due to exigent circumstances and probable cause, and accordingly, it did not determine whether Gomez-Moreno's subsequent consent constituted an independent act of free will. Instead, the district court only addressed whether Gomez-Moreno's consent was voluntary. 36 Here, we do not decide whether Gomez-Moreno's consent was voluntary because even if it were, her consent was not an independent act of free will, given the closeness in time between the initial unconstitutional raid and the consent she gave, the absence of intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the initial unconstitutional raid into and the search of her home. See id.; see also Vega, 221 F.3d at 802.