United States v. Warwick, 928 F.3d 939

FBI agents approached William Warwick’s trailer to execute an arrest warrant for a murder suspect believed to be hiding there; multiple agents initially displayed firearms.
Warwick answered the door; the district court credited officer testimony that he gave oral consent to search and that no one entered before that consent.
Agents found the fugitive in a closet and observed firearms in plain view; Warwick, kept outside and loosely monitored for ~35 minutes, volunteered that the guns were his.
After an officer learned Warwick was a convicted felon, Warwick signed a written consent-to-search form after an agent read and explained it; no threats or force were found by the district court.
The search yielded firearms, ammunition, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia; Warwick moved to suppress evidence arguing (1) no oral consent and (2) written consent was involuntary.
The district court denied suppression based on credibility findings; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err on oral consent and (2) written consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Warwick orally consented to the initial search for the fugitive	Warwick: he did not give oral consent; agents entered from rear without permission	Government: officer testimony that Warwick said “Go ahead” and permitted entry	Court: district court credibility finding that Warwick consented was not clearly erroneous — oral consent upheld
Whether oral consent (if given) was voluntary	Warwick (on appeal): even if he consented, it was involuntary due to show of force and circumstances	Government: voluntariness not argued below; waived for appeal	Court: waiver—argument not raised in suppression motion, so appellate review declined
Whether Warwick’s written consent to a full search was voluntary	Warwick: signed consent was coerced by earlier show of force, 35-minute detention, and belief refusal was futile	Government: form was explained, right to refuse stated, demeanor was friendly, no coercive tactics	Court: under the totality of circumstances, written consent was voluntary; district court’s finding not clearly erroneous
Whether evidence should be suppressed despite consent	Warwick: fruits of search were obtained unlawfully	Government: consent valid (and alternatively inevitable discovery)	Court: suppression denied; judgment affirmed

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (warrant requirement and consent exception to Fourth Amendment)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishing expectations of privacy and warrant rule context)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (limits on co-tenant consent and common-law roots of consent exception)
United States v. Asch, 207 F.3d 1238 (deference to district court credibility findings)
United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244 (credibility determinations rarely clear error when case rests on oral testimony)
United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (appellate waiver for arguments not raised in suppression motion)
United States v. Angulo-Fernandez, 53 F.3d 1177 (standard for proving consent was voluntary)
United States v. Carbajal-Iriarte, 586 F.3d 795 (totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness)
Eidson v. Owens, 515 F.3d 1139 (signed consent form evidences voluntariness)
United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 1300 (factors to evaluate voluntariness including show of force and advisements)
United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215 (consent may be voluntary even after officers initially display weapons then holster them)
United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260 (consent after ~30 minutes can be voluntary; non-overbearing contact)
United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548 (detention does not preclude valid consent)