Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Defendant’s April 16, 2009 Statement and Memorandum in Support, filed November 9, 2009 (Doc. 30)(“Statements Motion”); (ii) the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Lack of Probable Cause in Search Warrant Affidavit, filed November 9, 2009 (Doc. 31)(“Affidavit Motion”); and (iii) the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Unconstitutional Consensual Entries to Personal Bedroom, filed November 9, 2009 (Doc. 33)(“Bed-room Motion”). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on February 26, 2010. The primary issues are: (i) whether there was a substantial basis for the Magistrate Judge, who issued a search warrant to search Defendant Carl Romero’s vehicle, to find that the warrant affidavit reflected probable cause; (ii) whether Romero’s step-father voluntarily consented to a cursory search of his house, wherein Romero also resided; (iii) whether the consent Romero’s step-father gave authorized the agents to enter and view Romero’s personal bedroom; (iv) whether Romero’s confessions were made in violation of his Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights; and (v) whether the agents had proper authorization to enter into Romero’s bedroom a second time to seize certain items of evidence. The Court holds: (i) that probable cause supported the warrant that agents used to seize and search Romero’s vehicle; (ii) Romero’s step-father voluntarily consented to the agents’ search; (iii) Romero’s step-father had apparent authority to consent to the agents’ search of Romero’s personal bedroom; (iv) Romero’s confessions were made during a proper investigatory detention — not during a custodial interrogation — and the confessions therefore did not violate his Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights; and (v) the consent to search that Romero’s step-father gave to the agents authorized the agents to reenter Romero’s bedroom and seize the evidence that the agents had seen during their initial entry. The Court will therefore deny all three of Romero’s motions to suppress, and will admit Romero’s confessions and all evidence acquired during the consensual search of his house and warrant-authorized search of his vehicle. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Court to state its essential findings on the record when deciding a motion that involves factual issues. The findings of fact in this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall serve as the Court’s essential findings for purposes of rule 12(d). The Court makes these findings under the authority of rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires a judge to decide preliminary questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, including the legality of a search or seizure and the voluntariness of an individual’s confession or consent to search. See United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 1898, 77 L.Ed.2d 286 (1983). In deciding such preliminary questions, the other rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges, do not bind the Court. See Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). Thus, the Court may consider hearsay in ruling on a motion to suppress. See United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d at 1269. 1. Between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on April 10, 2009, Fabian Madrid and Naayaitch Friday rode as passengers in a friend’s vehicle to a Sonic drive-in in Española, New Mexico. See Transcript of Hearing at 24:25-25:7 (taken February 26, 2010)(Scholl)(“Tr.”). 2. Madrid was one of Friday’s best friends. See Tr. at 24:20-24 (Scholl). 3. While Madrid and Friday drank alcohol with other friends at the Sonic, Defendant Carl Romero, accompanied by Mario Sanchez and Lucas Willow, parked Romero’s vehicle in the spot next to Madrid and Friday, and joined in the socializing. See Tr. at 24:20-27:9 (Ortega, Scholl); Affidavit of Arlen E. Scholl ¶ 4, at 2 (executed April 16, 2009), filed December 7, 2009 (Doc. 40-2) (“Scholl’s Aff.”); Government Exhibit 2. 4. Romero was driving a green 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier that formerly belonged to Angela A. Tapia-Talache. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶¶ 13,15, at 5-6; Tr. at 69:5-18. 5. Madrid and Friday had never before met Romero, Willow or Sanchez. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 4, at 2. 6. While everyone drank and socialized, Madrid interacted with an individual named Rick with whom Madrid had experienced a prior confrontation. Rick displayed a black handgun, at which point Madrid hid behind a vehicle. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 5, at 2-3; Tr. at 26:15-25 (Scholl). 7. One of the three individuals in Romero’s vehicle offered Madrid “their gun,” which was “a long ‘rifle type’ gun in their ear.” Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 5, at 2-3; Tr. at 26:15-27:7 (Scholl). 8. No shots were fired during Madrid’s encounter with Rick. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 5, at 2-3. 9. At approximately 10:45 p.m., Romero, Sanchez, Willow, Friday, and Madrid decided to leave the Sonic restaurant and go to Big Rock Casino located on the Santa Clara Pueblo near Española. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 7, at 3. 10. Friday rode with Romero, Willow, and Sanchez in Romero’s vehicle to Big Rock, while Madrid traveled there in the vehicle of some female friends. See Scholl Aff. ¶ 7, at 3. 11. Romero, Friday, Madrid, Willow, and Sanchez met at Big Rock at approximately 11:00 p.m., and proceeded to the Sports Bar area, where they drank until approximately 11:30 p.m. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶¶ 7-8, at 3. 12. Security footage from Big Rock shows that Romero was wearing a red baseball cap while the five men were at the Sports Bar. See Tr. at 22:1-10 (Scholl). 13. Shortly after 11:30 p.m., Romero, Friday, Madrid, Willow, and Sanchez got into the Cavalier and left the Big Rock parking lot. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 8, at 3. 14. At approximately 12:35 a.m. on April 11, 2009, the Cavalier returned to the Big Rock parking lot. The vehicle was “driving erratically so it caught the attention of the casino security.” Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 9, at 3; Tr. at 27:12-28:4 (Scholl). 15. A Big Rock video surveillance camera captured two of the individuals who had been in the Cavalier urinating in the parking lot. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 9, at 3-4. 16. The five men — including Romero and Friday — appear in video footage heading toward the Sports Bar area of Big Rock and subsequently getting into the Cavalier and leaving the Big Rock parking lot; they also are visible inside the car in video surveillance footage of the Cavalier’s return to the Casino parking lot. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 7-9, at 3-4. 17. The Cavalier left the parking lot again at approximately 12:45 a.m. on April 11, 2009. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 9, at 4. 18. The five men drove around in the Cavalier “for awhile” until Madrid asked to be dropped off at a friend’s house. Romero, driving the vehicle, acquiesced to the request and dropped Madrid off at the friend’s house. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶¶ 10-11, 15 at 4-6. 19. The four men remaining in the vehicle told Madrid they were “going to go to Buffalo Thunder Casino [which is] located on the Pojoaque Pueblo, New Mexico.” Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 11, at 4. 20. Madrid did not see Friday alive again after the vehicle left him at his friend’s house. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 11, at 4. 21. On April 11, 2009, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a person discovered Friday’s deceased body with shotgun wounds to his chest and chin in an arroyo approximately two miles from where Romero had dropped off Madrid earlier that day. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 12, at 5. 22. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Arlen B. Scholl was notified on April 11, 2009 that a body, which would ultimately be identified as Friday’s, was found in an arroyo at the San Ildelfonso Pueblo in northern New Mexico. See Tr. at 14:24-15:4 (Scholl). 23. There was “virtually no blood” at the location where Friday’s body was discovered. The clothing appeared to have been “tidied” up, and a bottle of vodka had been placed between Friday’s legs. Tire tracks were found coming “from the main dirt road into the wash to where the body was and then around the body and then back to the main road.” These facts led agent Scholl to believe that Friday’s body had been placed at the location where it was found. See Scholl Aff. ¶ 12, at 5; Tr. at 16:18-17:21 (Ortega, Scholl). 24. A doctor at the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator in Albuquerque performed an autopsy on Friday’s body on Sunday, April 12, 2009. The autopsy revealed that Friday was killed by two shots from a relatively small shotgun. See Tr. at 20:3-21:3 (Ortega, Scholl). 25. On April 13, 2009, the Big Rock security supervisor informed the FBI that security department personnel remembered, after being dispatched to investigate an erratic driving incident, seeing the five individuals on the surveillance video on the morning of April 11, 2009 in a vehicle bearing New Mexico license plate number 029NJK. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 9, at 3-4; Tr. at 27:19-28:17 (Scholl). 26. After receiving the information from the Casino security supervisor, law-enforcement agents were able to match New Mexico license plate number 029NJK to a green 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier bearing Vehicle Identification Number 1G1JC1249X7192868, and determined that it was registered to Tapia-Talache, who resides at 345 Popay Avenue, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, New Mexico. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 13, at 5; Tr. at 28:12-17 (Scholl). 27. Romero is a relative of Tapia-Talache, and he lists the same Popay Avenue address on his New Mexico Driver’s License. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 13, at 5; Tr. at 67:8-25 (O. Martinez). 28. Scholl learned that, according to the Ohkay Owingeh Tribal Police Department’s Incident Report, Romero had been arrested on February 20, 2009 for careless driving and driving under the influence. The reporting officer found a loaded .410 shotgun in the back seat of Romero’s vehicle. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 16, at 6; Tr. at 56:3-9 (Scholl). 29. At the time of Romero’s arrest for careless driving and driving under the influence, the .410 shotgun found in the vehicle was seized. The shotgun was later released to Romero’s mother. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 16, at 6. 30. On April 14, 2009, law-enforcement officers saw a green Chevrolet Cavalier at 345 Popay Avenue, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶ 17, at 6. 31. On April 16, 2009, the United States applied for a federal search warrant to search a “green 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier bearing New Mexico License Plate 029NJK and Vehicle Identification Number 1G1JC1249X7192868.” Tr. at 30:8-31:9 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 38:7-11 (Scholl); Government Exhibit 1 (“Warrant Application”). 32. As part of the Application for a Search Warrant, Scholl executed an Affidavit on April 16, 2009. See Tr. at 31:10-17 (Ortega, Scholl); Government Exhibit 2 (“Warrant Affidavit”). 33. Scholl’s affidavit stated, in relevant part: 3. On Saturday, April 11, 2009, at approximately 4:30pm, the deceased body of NAAYAITCH FRIDAY, age 26, was discovered in an arroyo on the San Ildelfonso Pueblo located in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The body was discovered by an individual driving through the arroyo.... An autopsy performed by the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator revealed that FRIDAY had been shot at close range in the chin and chest with a shotgun. 4. A group of individuals, including FRIDAY and an associate ... met at Sonic restaurant in Española, New Mexico around 9:30pm on Friday, April 10, 2009, and began to drink alcohol and socialize. After hanging out for a while, a vehicle with three male occupants pulled into the parking space next to them and joined in the drinking and socializing. 5. ... ASSOCIATE observed the three males had a long “rifle type” gun in their car located along the outside of the driver’s seat between the car door and the driver’s seat.... [T]he car containing the long rifle was the green Chevrolet Cavalier. íJí í¡: % :J; :Jí ‡ 9. At approximately 12:35am on Saturday, April 11, 2009, the green Chevrolet Cavalier returned to the Big Rock Casino parking lot.... The five males [in the car], who had previously come to the casino, including FRIDAY and ASSOCIATE, are seen in the vehicle on the video surveillance. The security officers recorded a New Mexico license plate of 029NJK and documented the contact. 10. According to ASSOCIATE, the group of five males cruised around for a while and then proceeded to the San Ildelfonso Pueblo. ASSOCIATE requested to be dropped off at a friend’s house located in El Rancho, New Mexico, which is located within the boundaries of the San Ildelfonso Pueblo. ASSOCIATE was extremely intoxicated at this point and does not know what time he was dropped off. 11. The other four males, including FRIDAY, dropped ASSOCIATE off and proceeded to leave his friend’s house.... ASSOCIATE did not see FRIDAY alive again. 12. The deceased body of Friday was discovered approximately two miles from the friend’s house where ASSOCIATE had been dropped off----The area from the friend’s house to the location where FRIDAY’S body was discovered is located within the boundaries of the San Ildelfonso Pueblo. 13. The green 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier bearing New Mexico license plate 029NJK ... is registered to Angela A. Tapia-Talache.... Also residing at the above listed address is CARL ROMERO .... ROMERO lists this address on his New Mexico Driver’s License. 15. On April 14, 2009, a photographic lineup containing photographs of males, all about the same approximate age and physical appearance was shown to ASSOCIATE. ASSOCIATE immediately selected the person in the photographic lineup, known as CARL ROMERO, ... as being the driver of the vehicle the night of Friday, April 10, 2009. ASSOCIATE was 100% sure that ROMERO was the driver. 16. According to an Incident Report from the Ohkay Owingeh Tribal Police Department, ROMERO was arrested on February 20, 2009.... The reporting officer found a loaded .410 shotgun in the back seat of the vehicle. When the officer asked ROMERO why he had a loaded gun in the car he stated that “some guys were picking on his friends, so he went for the gun for protection and was going to shoot them if they came back.” The shotgun was seized and later released to his mother. 20. Based on the above, the affiant believes probable cause exists that there may be evidence of a crime ... in a vehicle known as a 1999 Green Chevrolet Cavalier, New Mexico License Plate 029NJK.... Scholl Aff. ¶¶ 3-20, at 1-7. 34. It became clear during the hearing that the ASSOCIATE referenced in Scholl’s affidavit was Madrid. See Tr. at 57:16-24 (Ortega). 35. The affidavit sought to search the vehicle in which Romero, Friday, Madrid, Willow, and Sanchez traveled on April 10-11, 2009. See Scholl’s Aff. ¶¶ 2, 7-10, at 1-4; Tr. at 54:5-19 (Scholl). 36. On April 16, 2009, the Honorable Richard L. Puglisi, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico, issued the Search and Seizure Warrant that Scholl requested. See Government Exhibit 3 (“Search Warrant”). 37. FBI and Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) agents went to 345 Popay Avenue — the address where Romero was ultimately located — to execute the search warrant on the Chevrolet Cavalier. See Tr. at 39:6-9 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 149:14-150:5 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 170:25-171:9 (Bustamante, Scholl); id. at 95:25-96:24 (Buie); id. at 107:13-15 (Buie); id. at 176:7-179:24 (Fischer). 38. The group of agents participating in the execution of the search warrant included: Scholl, FBI Special Agents Mark Buie, Richard Grout, and Nancy Duncan, and BIA Special Agent Carleen Fischer. See Tr. at 68:13-69:5 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 93:5-12 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 143:11-21 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 176:7-21 (Fischer). 39. When the FBI agents communicated with Fischer about what was going to occur in the execution of the warrant, they indicated to her that they were going to retrieve the vehicle. There was no indication that they intended to speak to or gain entry to the property to access Romero. See Tr. at 185:22-186:10 (Fischer). 40. The residence in which Romero was located is one of two residences on the property at 345 Popay Avenue, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. See Tr. at 94:6-16,120:13-17 (Buie); id. at 176:22-177:6 (Fischer). 41. The Cavalier was parked between the two residences located on the property where the agents executed the search warrant. See Tr. at 145:1-5 (Scholl). 42. At the time agents arrived at 345 Popay Avenue to execute the search warrant for the Cavalier, Orlando Martinez, Romero’s step-father, resided at that address. He had done so for approximately three years. See Tr. at 67:8-21 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 43. Romero resides at the house with O. Martinez and has his own bedroom inside. See Tr. at 72:16-23 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 44. O. Martinez owns the house and had access to the entire house at the time of the search. See Tr. at 72:11-23 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 45. Although O. Martinez owns the house and has access to the entire house, he generally does not enter Romero’s private room. See Tr. at 72:16-23 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 46. The back part of the house, where Romero resided, was “kind of a private room for [Romero],” which he sometimes locks; Martinez did not generally enter that back bedroom. Tr. at 72:11-23 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 84:11-16 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 47. When Romero would leave home, he would sometimes lock the door on his room; when he locked the door, other family members no longer had access to the room. See Tr. at 84:5-16 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 48. When the agents executing the search warrant knocked on the door of the residence at the rear of the property at 345 Popay Avenue, O. Martinez answered. See Tr. at 67:22-68:25 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 95:25-96:13 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 115:14-15 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 118:10-22 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 164:14-18 (Bustamante, Scholl). 49. It is regular practice for law-enforcement officers to be armed and wear body armor during their shifts. See Tr. at 95:4-5; 116:8-12 (Buie). 50. The agents were wearing full body armor when O. Martinez answered the door. See Tr. at 95:2-19 (Ortega, Buie). 51. Three Chevy Tahoes were parked in close proximity to the residence. See Tr. at 76:21-77:5 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 52. O. Martinez recognized the agents as FBI and BIA by their badges. See Tr. at 77:6-8 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 53. O. Martinez noticed that all of the agents were armed when he answered the door. All of the agents had their weapons holstered except Grout, who carried an M4. The M4 could not be holstered because it was too large, but it was slung over his shoulder and hung at his side. See Tr. at 77:21-79:3 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 95:4-21 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 114:22-115:10 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 119:21-120:6 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 125:20-23 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 187:2-17 (Bustamante, Fischer). 54. The agents were aware that they did not have an arrest warrant for Rome ro, but, as a secondary objective for their visit, they were hoping to speak to him if they encountered him while executing the search warrant. See Tr. 117:1-118:19 (Buie). 55. When the agents asked O. Martinez whether Romero was at the residence, O. Martinez responded that Romero was not at home. See Tr. at 96:25-97:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 121:22-122:7 (Bustamante, Buie). 56. O. Martinez identified himself as Romero’s step-father to the agents. See Tr. at 72:11-15 (0. Martinez, Ortega); id. at 69:19-20 (0. Martinez, Ortega); id. at 70:1-11 (0. Martinez, Ortega)(“A: They asked for Carl Romero. I said, no, I wasn’t — that I was his stepdad.”). 57. Buie requested permission from O. Martinez to enter the residence. Although he did not express it to O. Martinez, his purpose was to conduct a “security sweep” to determine if anyone else was inside and thereby to ensure the agents’ safety. See Tr. at 71:17-22 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 80:15-18, 84:21-85:1 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 97:4-18 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 118:20-119:13 (Bustamante, Buie). 58. O. Martinez was not told that it is necessary for agents to enter a residence when executing a warrant for the vehicle, nor was he told that it was standard procedure for agents to conduct security sweeps of premises before executing a search warrant, or that the sweep was to ensure the agents’ personal safety. See Tr. at 80:15-18 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 85:25-86:9 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 97:4-14, 98:3-18 (Ortega, Buie). 59. O. Martinez felt nervous, surprised, and intimidated by the agents’ presence. See Tr. at 70:24-25 (0. Martinez); id. at 79:13-19 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 60. O. Martinez’ compliance was the result, at least in part, of his ability to see the agents’ weapons. See Tr. at 70:24-25 (0. Martinez); id. at 79:13-19 (Bustamante, O. Martinez). 61. O. Martinez described his interactions with the agents as “tense,” but noted that the agents were neither rude nor insolent towards him. See Tr. at 75:8-14 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 62. The agents’ actions were not coercive. 63. O. Martinez agreed to allow the agents inside the residence, and the agents then conducted a “security sweep” of the residence. Tr. 97:15-18 (Ortega, Buie). 64. O. Martinez did not give any indication which a reasonable police officer would have thought indicated a lack of voluntary consent. See Tr. at 70:24-73:3 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 78:7-82:3 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 84:25-85:1 (0. Martinez)(“A: They asked if they could enter the house, and I said they could.”); id. at 97:4-98:18 (Ortega, Buie)(“A. [0. Martinez] was very cordial and cooperative and he didn’t raise any objection at all. He just ... allowed [the agents to enter] and said ‘sure.’ ”). 65. The “security sweep” consisted of agents walking through the premises to establish that there were no persons hiding therein who could ambush or otherwise endanger the agents while executing the warrant on the vehicle. See Tr. at 72:3-4 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 78:7-12, 84:21-85:1 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 97:4-98:6 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 125:7-16 (Bustamante, Buie). 66. Security sweeps like the one conducted at the Martinez residence are standard safety procedures that FBI agents employ when executing search warrants. See Tr. at 98:7-14 (Ortega, Buie). 67. The security sweep was not conducted pursuant to a warrant, but was instead based upon O. Martinez’s acquiescing to the agents’ request to enter the residence. See Tr. at 119:3-12 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 71:17-20 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 68. As part of the security sweep, the agents called out who they were and why they were there, opened doors, and looked in and entered rooms throughout the residence. See Tr. at 106:24-107:12 (Buie); id. at 119:14-22 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 135:25-136:11 (Buie). 69. During the execution of a security sweep, it is a regular practice for agents to open doors to rooms within a building. See Tr. at 137:4-6 (Ortega, Buie). 70. The agents did not have a specific conversation with O. Martinez about searching specific bedrooms, nor did O. Martinez limit the scope of the agents’ search in any particular way, nor did O. Martinez tell the agents that any kind of arrangement existed which gave Romero exclusive access to any rooms. See Tr. at 121:22-122:4 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 124:12-14 (Buie). 71. Two agents stayed with O. Martinez while the sweep of the house and interview of Romero were taking place. See Tr. at 73:4-22 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 72. The agents did not force O. Martinez to remain at his residence, but O. Martinez nevertheless went to work late on April 16th, 2009. See Tr. at 73:11-22 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 73. The agents believed that O. Martinez gave consent allowing them to walk through the house without limitations, and believed the consent extended to opening doors and entering the back bedrooms. See Tr. at 124:11-24 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 137:7-13 (Ortega, Buie). 74. Romero’s room is at the rear of the property. See Tr. at 72:3-10 (Ortega, O. Martinez). 75. The agents opened Romero’s bedroom door. See Tr. at 98:22-100:4 (Buie); id. at 122:8-123:16; id. at 123:15-124:6 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 135:25-137:3 (Ortega, Buie). 76. The agents did not knock on or otherwise request separate permission from O. Martinez to open Romero’s bedroom door. See Tr. at 124:7-14 (Bustamante, Buie). 77. Romero’s bedroom door was not locked, but rather, opened freely when the agents manipulated the door handle. Buie did not see the lock on the door. See Tr. at 122:8-123:5 (Bustamante, Buie). 78. The lock on Romero’s door is not clearly visible to the casual observer. See Tr. at 122:13-123:9 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 136:15-137:6 (Ortega, Buie). 79. Romero did not give consent to the agents before they opened his bedroom door. The agents did not knock or otherwise request permission from him to open the door. See Tr. at 124:15-24 (Bustamante, Buie). 80. Romero did not consent to the officers entering his bedroom. See Tr. at 124:7-24 (Bustamante, Buie). 81. Romero did not consent to the protective sweep of his room, nor did the agents seek permission from Romero to “sweep” his room. See Tr. at 124:7-24 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 172:13-20 (Bustamante, Scholl). 82. After opening the bedroom door, agents discovered Romero, evidently asleep, in that room. See Tr. at 98:19-100:4 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 123:15-124:6 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 137:14-19 (Ortega, Buie). 83. Buie and Grout stood in the threshold to Romero’s room. Buie had his hand on his weapon, making it visible, and Grout’s M4 was also visible to Romero. See Tr. at 124:18-22 (Buie); id. at 125:17-126:1 (Bustamante, Buie). 84. In Romero’s room, the agents saw a shotgun and a red baseball cap. See Tr. at 101:7-15 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 132:22-133:1 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 139:16-21 (Ortega, Buie). 85. The shotgun and red baseball cap were pertinent to the agent’s investigation, because they knew from the autopsy and the photographs of Friday that the killer used a small caliber shotgun to kill Friday and Romero had been seen wearing the red baseball cap at the Sports Bar at Big Rock with Friday. See Tr. at 101:12-102:6 (Ortega, Buie). 86. At some point, the agents entered Romero’s bedroom to turn on the lights. The officers allowed Romero to get dressed, but briefly patted down the clothes for weapons first. See Tr. at 128:11-24 (Buie, Bustamante); id. at 138:4-11 (Ortega, Buie). 87. Agents requested that Romero leave the bedroom and exit the residence so that they could speak to him. See Tr. at 103:11-104:1 (Ortega, Buie). 88. Romero complied with the agents’ request to go outside without objection or significant delay. See Tr. at 85:5-7 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 103:22-104:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 129:13-21 (Bustamante, Buie). 89. The sweep of Romero’s house took about five minutes to complete. See Tr. at 73:23-74:5 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 82:18-21 (Bustamante, O. Martinez); id. at 98:19-99:7 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 100:22-101:4 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 106:24-107:12 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 148:8-11 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 178:18-179:14 (Ortega, Fischer). 90. Romero was free to leave the “scene at any time,” because he was not in custody, but Romero would not have been permitted to wander the property unescorted. Tr. at 126:23-24 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 129:24-130:5 (Bustamante, Buie). 91. After Romero exited the front door of the residence, Scholl approached Romero and asked to speak with him. Scholl told Romero that he was not under arrest. See Tr. at 72:24-73:3 (Ortega, O. Martinez); id. at 148:12-149:1 (Ortega, Scholl). 92. Romero could have refused to talk to Scholl. See Tr. at 129:24-130:1 (Buie). 93. Romero walked unrestrained to Scholl’s vehicle and, in compliance with Scholl’s request, sat inside. See Tr. at 130:8-10 (Bustamante, Buie); id. at 148:22-149:5 (Scholl). 94. Before getting inside Scholl’s vehicle, Grout put away the M4 rifle. See Tr. at 167:20-168:11 (Bustamante, Scholl). 95. Romero sat in the front passenger’s seat of Scholl’s vehicle, while Scholl sat in the driver’s seat and Grout sat in the back seat. See Tr. at 105:21-106:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 149:6-13 (Bustamante, Scholl). 96. While Romero, Scholl, and Grout sat in the vehicle, the front two windows were down. The back door was open for part of the time they were in the vehicle. See Tr. at 105:18-106:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 149:6-13 (Ortega, Scholl). 97. Romero was very cordial and spoke very matter-of-factly when talking to Scholl and Grout; none of them ever raised their voices. See Tr. at 159:2-8 (Ortega, Scholl). 98. While speaking to Romero in the vehicle, Scholl asked Romero some questions about his activities and whereabouts on the evening of April 10, 2009 and the morning of April 11, 2009. See Tr. at 149:14-152:19 (Ortega, Scholl). 99. During this line of questioning, Romero told Scholl that he shot Friday. Scholl asked Romero to repeat this statement while the agents recorded it. See Tr. at 152:13-155:11, 155:12-22 (Ortega, Scholl). 100. Romero told Scholl that the shotgun which he used to kill Friday was in his room. See Tr. at 156:5-9 (Scholl). 101. One of the agents asked Romero if they could reenter his bedroom to seize the shotgun and clothing, to which Romero agreed. He stated: “[Y]eah, it’s evidence.” Tr. at 156:10-13 (Ortega, Scholl). 102. The tow truck did not arrive until approximately thirty minutes after the security sweep. Scholl’s conversation with Romero occurred during that interim period. See Tr. at 106:9-17 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 130:16-132:16 (Bustamante, Buie). 103. Although the precise time at which Scholl began interviewing Romero is unclear, the interview took no more than thirty minutes. See Tr. at 170:16:24 (Scholl)(“[W]e got there ... about 12:55 in the afternoon. The ... taped portion of the interview shows end interview time of 1:32 p.m.”); id. at 180:18-24 (Fischer)(estimating the interview length as 20 to 30 minutes). 104. After Romero made these statements and gave the agents verbal consent to search his bedroom, Scholl arrested Romero and placed him in Fischer’s vehicle. See Tr. at 155:12-156:3 (Ortega, Scholl); id. at 180:5-17 (Ortega, Fischer). 105. After placing Romero in Fischer’s vehicle, Scholl presented and read to Romero FBI D26 — a standard consent-to-search form — which indicated that agents wished to search for and seize the shotgun and ammunition in Romero’s personal room at 345 Popay Avenue. See Tr. at 156:10-159:10 (Ortega, Scholl). 106. The consent-to-search form contains: (i) an affirmation that the person granting consent has been advised of his or her right to refuse consent; (ii) an affirmation that permission has been granted voluntarily; (iii) an authorization for agents to take any items which they determine may be related to their investigation, and; (iv) a place for the consenting person to sign and date the consent form. See Tr. at 158:11-22 (Ortega, Scholl); Government Exhibit 4. 107. Romero signed and dated the consent form in Scholl’s presence, authorizing agents to search his “personal room at 345 Popay Ave.” Tr. at 107:19-108:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 156:10-157:1, 158:23-159:1 (Ortega, Scholl); Government Exhibit 4. 108. When Romero signed the form, he had a calm and cooperative demeanor, was sober, and understood Scholl’s explanation of the consent form. See Tr. at 159:2-16 (Ortega, Scholl). 109. Romero consented to the search of his personal room of his own free will, and was not forced or otherwise coerced. See Tr. at 159:17-19, id. at 158:1-160:5 (Ortega, Scholl). 110. At no time during Romero’s interactions with Scholl and Grout did anyone raise his voice; the interview was cordial and calm. See Tr. at 159:2-8 (Ortega, Scholl). 111. Romero verbally gave the agents consent to search his room after his confession but before the agents placed him under arrest. Romero did not sign the consent-to-search form, however, until after he had been handcuffed and placed in Fischer’s vehicle. See Tr. at 155:4-156:19 (Ortega, Scholl). 112. So far as the evidence discloses, no agent read Romero his Miranda rights at aiiy time during the events recited in this opinion. 113. As a result of the consent-to-search form that Romero signed after he was taken out of the residence, agents searched Romero’s bedroom. See Tr. at 107: 16-108:3 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 110:11-17 (Ortega, Buie). 114. Two male FBI agents re-entered the house approximately forty minutes to one hour after agents escorted Romero out of the residence. See Tr. at 74:6-75:1 (O. Martinez). 115. The agents seized a .410 gauge shotgun, ammunition, and various articles of clothing — including a red hat — from Romero’s bedroom. The seized items: (i) were documented; (ii) were transported to the Albuquerque, New Mexico FBI evidence room; (iii) were taken into evidence, and; (iv) currently remain in the FBI evidence room’s custody. See Tr. at 110:18-111:11 (Ortega, Buie); id. at 159:20-160:10 (Ortega, Scholl). 116. After his arrest and detention in Fischer’s vehicle, Leslie Martinez, Romero’s mother, arrived on the scene and approached Fischer’s vehicle. See Tr. at 180:5-181:12 (Ortega, Fischer). 117. L. Martinez asked Fischer whether she could speak to Romero. See Tr. at 181:5-14 (Ortega, Fischer). 118. In response to her request, Fischer and Duncan obtained permission from the other agents for L. Martinez to speak with Romero. See Tr. at 181:13-20 (Ortega, Fischer). 119. L. Martinez spoke to Romero. See Tr. at 181:21-22 (Ortega, Fischer). 120. Fischer overheard conversations between L. Martinez and Romero that took place inside or near Fischer’s vehicle. See Tr. at 181:23-182:12 (Ortega, Fischer). 121. During one of these conversations, Fischer overheard L. Martinez ask Romero whether he had taken someone’s life, to which Romero did not initially respond. See Tr. at 181:25-182:12 (Ortega, Fischer). 122. Fischer overheard L. Martinez again ask Romero whether he had taken someone’s life. Romero responded in the affirmative. L. Martinez then walked away. See Tr. at 182:13-24 (Ortega, Fischer). 123. L. Martinez returned, and Fischer overheard her asking Romero whether he was going to say that he was sorry, to which Romero responded: “What’s sorry going to do? Sorry’s not going to change anything.” Tr. at 182:20-183:5 (Ortega, Fischer). 124. Following the exchange between L. Martinez and Romero, L. Martinez again stepped away from the vehicle and approached her mother — Romero’s grandmother — who had just then arrived at the scene in a white pickup. Fischer overheard L. Martinez tell her mother that Romero had “killed somebody.” Tr. at 182:20-183:12 (Ortega, Fischer). 125. Romero’s vehicle was seized and taken off of the property. See Tr. at 183:21-24 (Ortega, Fischer). 126. Romero’s vehicle was searched in Albuquerque the following day, yielding three expended .410 shotgun shell casings, but no materials testing positive for blood. See Tr. at 160:13-18 (Scholl). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A federal Grand Jury indicted Romero with: (i) one count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(3); (ii) one count of Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6); (iii) one count of Use of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i); (iv) one count of First Degree Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1111; and (v) one count of Use of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l)(A)(C)(i). See Indictment at 1-3, filed May 12, 2009 (Doc. 13). Romero filed three separate motions to suppress. The first, filed November 9, 2009, challenges the admissibility of Romero’s April 16, 2009 statements to government agents and asks the Court for an order suppressing them. Romero contends that those statements were involuntary and that officers obtained them during a custodial interrogation without first notifying him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. See Statements Motion at 3-5. The United States responded on December 2, 2009. See United States’ Response to Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements at 5-10, filed December 2, 2009 (Doc. 39) (“Statements Response”). The United States argues that the Court should not suppress Romero’s statements because they were made during a voluntary police-citizen encounter — or, in the alternative, during a limited-purpose seizure' — and that the statements were voluntarily made. See Statements Response at 5-10. Romero also filed his second motion on November 9, 2009. The second motion seeks an order suppressing any and all evidence seized from the Cavalier. See Affidavit Motion ¶ 1, at 1. It also asks the Court to suppress all other evidence obtained by the police during the investigation of Romero’s vehicle on April 16, 2009. See id. ¶¶2-5, at 1-2. Romero asserts that the affidavit supporting the search warrant that the agents executed on the Cavalier lacked probable cause, rendering the search of the vehicle unconstitutional and all of the other evidence fruit of the poisonous tree. See Affidavit Motion ¶¶ 15-21, at 5-6. Specifically, he asserts that the warrant affidavit presented a theory — that “it is probable that the murder either occurred in the green Chevrolet Cavalier or the victim’s body was transported to its discovered location in the vehicle”— and that the affidavit does not provide probable cause to believe that those precise events took place. Affidavit Motion ¶¶ 15-21, at 5-6. See Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Lack of Probable Cause in Search Warrant Affidavit at 1-5, filed November 9, 2009 (Doc. 32). The United States opposes this motion, arguing that the judge who issued the search warrant had substantial basis to find probable cause. See Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Lack of Probable Cause in Search Warrant Affidavit at 8-10, filed December 7, 2009 (Doc. 40)(“Affidavit Response”). The United States further argues that, if the Court finds that there was a constitutional violation, the evidence seized should be admissible under the independent-source doctrine. See id. at 10-14. In his reply, Romero reiterates much of his prior argument, and stresses that the United States cannot reach outside its warrant affidavit for facts that further support a finding of probable cause. See Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Lack of Probable Cause in Search Warrant Affidavit at 3-4, filed January 11, 2010 (Doc. 46). Romero’s third motion, also filed on November 9, 2009, requests suppression of evidence acquired as a result of allegedly unconstitutional entries into his personal bedroom. See Bedroom Motion ¶¶ 1-5, at 1-2. Romero contends that government agents lacked proper consent to search his personal bedroom, and that their initial entry violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. See Bedroom Motion at 4. Romero further asks the Court to suppress any fruit of the poisoned search, including evidence uncovered in all subsequent searches and any statements made by Romero in response to agents’ questioning. See Bedroom Motion at 4. In response, the United States relies on the protective-sweep concept enunciated in Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990), arguing that the agents had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and thus had authority to conduct a protective sweep of the house at which they found the Cavalier. See Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Unconstitutional Entries to Bedroom, filed December 7, 2009 (Doc. 41)(“Bedroom Response”). The United States then asserts that Romero consented to the agents’ entry into his bedroom, and that such consent was freely and voluntarily given. See Bedroom Response at 7-9 (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and United States v. Peña, 143 F.3d 1363 (10th Cir.1998)). The United States supplemented its response on February 24, 2010, to argue that, if the Court found a constitutional violation, the Court should still deny Romero’s motion to suppress under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. See Supplemental Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Unconstitutional Entries into Bedroom, filed February 24, 2010 (Doc. 53)(“Supp. Bedroom Response”). It asserts that, based on what the agents had discovered in their investigation, and what they observed in Romero’s bedroom, they would have acquired a search warrant and used it to search Romero’s bedroom, thus finding the same evidence. See Supp. Bedroom Response at 5-7. During the hearing, four witness testified for the United States: (i) Scholl, who sought the search warrant and interviewed Romero following his discovery at the residence; (ii) O. Martinez, Romero’s stepfather and the individual who permitted the agents to enter the residence; (in) Buie, who performed the security sweep of O. Martinez’ residence; and (iv) Fischer, who participated in the execution of the search warrant, but not in the security sweep of O. Martinez’ residence. Mr. Bustamante reiterated his argument that Scholl’s Affidavit was “at best vague” and does not specifically allege why any evidence of a crime could be found in the Cavalier. Tr. at 63:4-11, 11:18-24, 12:8-12 (Bustamante). Mr. Bustamante contended that O. Martinez’ testimony was unclear whether he gave the agents consent to search his residence at 345 Popay Avenue and further that O. Martinez’ testimony shows that he did not have authority to consent to a search of Romero’s bedroom. See id. at 209:8-12 (Bustamante); id. at 212:4-12 (Bustamante). Mr. Bustamante further argued that, upon opening the door to Romero’s bedroom and finding him sleeping therein, the agents should have requested permission to enter the bedroom, because finding someone asleep in a bedroom should lead an officer to believe that individual has control over the room. See id. at 209:22-210:89 (Bustamante). The other arguments made by the attorneys did not substantially differ from the arguments set forth in their briefs. RELEVANT LAW REGARDING FOURTH-AMENDMENT SEARCHES The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution “protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ ” United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d 1126, 1132 (10th Cir.2008)(quoting U.S. Const, amend. IV). It also commands that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. “The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police — which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment — is basic to a free society.” Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949), overruled on other grounds by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” and the Supreme Court of the United States has vigorously asserted that the proper analysis under the Fourth Amendment is not whether the place searched is a “constitutionally protected area.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The proper inquiry is whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy in the place searched and whether that expectation was objectively reasonable. See id. (‘What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”); id. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring)(“My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ”). There is no doubt, however, that a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a particularly strong one, in his own home. The “chief evil” from which the Fourth Amendment protects citizens is unwanted police entry into the home, and the “principal protection” is “the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d at 1132. See Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001)(“ ‘At the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment ‘stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ ”)(quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)(“[S]earehes and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”). There is also a recognized, albeit lesser, expectation of privacy associated with a motor vehicle. See United States v. Mercado, 307 F.3d 1226, 1228 (10th Cir.2002)(eiting California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390-93, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), and Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925)). 1. Search Warrants Require Probable Cause. The Supreme Court requires that a magistrate judge be provided information sufficient to determine the existence of probable cause before he or she issues a warrant. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). A magistrate judge must consider the totality of the circumstances described in the warrant affidavit to determine probable cause, which exists when there is “a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or other evidence will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272, 1280-81 (10th Cir.2009)(quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317). A magistrate judge’s decision to issue a search warrant may not be solely a ratification of the law-enforcement officials’ conclusion that a suspect has committed a crime; rather, affidavits supporting a search-warrant request must provide the magistrate judge with a substantial basis on which to issue a warrant. See United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1281; United States v. Prince, 593 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir.2010)(“An affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause.”)(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the magistrate judge must perform his or her own unbiased and independent review of the facts presented. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). To assure that warrants are not based on bare conclusions, the Supreme Court has mandated the courts to “conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317. See United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1281. A magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause is nevertheless given great deference, with the court’s role in reviewing the probable-cause finding limited to the sufficiency of the warrant affidavit; the Supreme Court prohibits after-the-fact de novo scrutiny of the probable-cause determination. See United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1281 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-40, 103 S.Ct. 2317, and Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984)). 2. Warrantless Searches: Limited Fourth Amendment Exceptions. Not all searches require a warrant. The Supreme Court has instructed that, when assessing the reasonableness of a warrant-less search, a court must begin “with the basic rule that ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ ” Arizona v. Gant, — U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1716, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009)(citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 357, 88 S.Ct. 507). See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated in United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir.2007): “A warrantless search of a suspect’s home is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the government can show that it falls within ‘one of a carefully defined set of exceptions.’ ” 498 F.3d 1115, 1123 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)). See United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d at 1132. a. Consensual Searches. Searches conducted pursuant to consent constitute one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search-warrant and probable-cause requirements. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). When an individual consents to a police search, and the consent is “freely and voluntarily given,” the search does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Peña, 143 F.3d at 1366 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041). The Tenth Circuit has provided a two-part test for determining voluntariness, which requires that the government “(1) ‘proffer clear and positive testimony that consent was unequivocal and specific and intelligently given,’ and (2) the officers must have used no ‘implied or express duress or coercion.’ ” United States v. Sanchez, 608 F.3d 685, 690 (10th Cir.2010)(quoting United States v. Taverna, 348 F.3d 873, 878 (10th Cir.2003)). Determining whether a party’s consent was free and voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Peña, 143 F.3d at 1366. The Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have developed a non-exhaustive list of factors that courts should consider when trying to determine whether a defendant’s consent was voluntarily given: (i) the threatening presence of several officers; (ii) the use of aggressive language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer’s request is compulsory, or, conversely, the officer’s pleasant manner and tone of voice; (iii) the prolonged retention of a person’s personal effects such as identification, or, conversely, the prompt return of the defendant’s identification and papers; (iv) the absence of other members of the public, or, conversely, whether the stop occurs in a public location such as the shoulder of an interstate highway, in public view; (v) the officer’s failure to advise the defendant that [he or] she is free to leave; ... (vi) the display of a weapon[;] and (vii) physical touching by the officer. United States v. Sedillo, No. CR 08-1419 JB, 2010 WL 965743, at *12 (D.N.M. Feb. 19, 2010) (Browning, JXquotations, alterations, and citations omitted). See United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir.2010); United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1314 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Anderson, 114 F.3d 1059, 1064 (10th Cir.1997). Because courts are required to look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether an individual’s consent was voluntary, see United States v. Peña, 143 F.3d at 1366, no one factor is dispositive in a court’s inquiry into the circumstances. For example, although an officer’s failure to advise a defendant that he or she is free to leave might suggest that coercive law-enforcement conduct caused the defendant’s consent to search, the Supreme Court has ruled that officers do not need to advise an individual of his or her right to refuse to consent to a search for that individual’s consent to be voluntary. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 232, 93 S.Ct. 2041. Moreover, the mere presence of officers by exits to a building, threatening no more than to question individuals if they seek to leave, “should not [result] in any reasonable apprehension by any [individual] that they would be seized or detained in any meaningful way.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 205, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002)(internal citations omitted). Additionally, an officer’s display of a weapon may contribute to the coercive nature of a situation, but “[t]he presence of a holstered firearm [ ] is unlikely to contribute to the coerciveness of the encounter absent active brandishing of the weapon.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. at 205, 122 S.Ct. 2105. As such, “it is only by analyzing all the circumstances of an individual consent that it can be ascertained whether in fact it was voluntary or coerced. It is this careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case that is evidenced in our prior decisions involving consent searches.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 232, 93 S.Ct. 2041. b. Third-Party Consent. A third-party’s consent can sometimes justify police entry and search of a suspect’s property. The Tenth Circuit has ruled that, when a third party who possesses either actual or apparent authority to consent to a search grants law-enforcement officers such consent, the search is lawful despite the lack of a search warrant. See United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d at 1124; United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215, 1221 (10th Cir.2004). Like consent originating from the defendant or suspect, third-party consent must be freely and voluntarily given, as determined from the totality of circumstances. See United States v. Sanchez, 608 F.3d at 689. Additionally, for the consent to be valid, a consenting third-party “must have had actual or apparent authority to do so.” Id. (quoting United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d at 1132)(internal alterations omitted). “It is the government’s burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the consenter had [authority to consent to the search of a suspect’s bedroom].” United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d 1323, 1329 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. McAlpine, 919 F.2d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir.1990)). See United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d at 1124. (i) Actual third-party authority. The Tenth Circuit has held that “a third party has [actual] authority to consent to a search of property if that third party has either (1) mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access, or (2) control for most purposes over it.” United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1329. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d at 1125; United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir.1999). Third-party consent cases are based on the relationship between a consenter and the property searched. See United States v. McAlpine, 919 F.2d 1461, 1464 (10th Cir.1990). “Mutual use of property by virtue of joint access is a fact-intensive inquiry,” and where a court finds that a third party residing full-time on the premises enters “the premises or room at will, without the consent of the subject of the search,” joint access exists with respect to that third-party. United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1329-30. “[Cjontrol for most purposes of property,” on the other hand, “is a normative inquiry dependent upon whether the relationship between the defendant and the third party is the type which creates a presumption of control for most purposes over the property by the third party.” Id. at 1330. The government bears the burden of establishing that one who consented to the search of a property had actual authority to do so. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990); United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1328. The relationship between a third-party and the defendant objecting to a search may “bear on the nexus between the consenter and the property.” United States v. McAlpine, 919 F.2d at 1464. In the Tenth Circuit, certain relationships between the third-party and a defendant give rise to a presumption that the third-party has control for most purposes. See United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1330. If the relationship between the defendant and the third party “creates [ ] a presumption of control [for most purposes] and is unrebutted, the third party has authority to consent to a search of the property.” Id. The Tenth Circuit has ruled that husband-wife and parent-child relationships support the presumption of control for most purposes, while landlord-tenant relationships tend to rebut it. See id. at 1330-31. In United States v. Rith, the Tenth Circuit recognized that parent-child relationships give rise to such a presumption, even where the “child” is legally an adult. Id. at 1327, 1330. Thus, if an adult defendant’s parent, with whom the defendant lives, gives officers consent to search the premises, the officers are authorized to search the adult defendant’s room unless there exist facts to rebut the presumption that the parent has the power to grant such authority. Even where a relationship gives rise to a presumption of control over the property, the presumption can be “rebutted by facts showing an agreement or understanding between the defendant and the third party that the latter must have permission to enter the defendant’s room.” United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1331. Factors which may rebut the presumption of control for most purposes include: (i) whether the defendant paid rent to the third party; (ii) a lock on the bedroom door; and (iii) an explicit or implicit agreement that the third party never enter a particular area. See id. (citing Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 489-90, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); United States v. Morning, 64 F.3d 531, 536 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Kinney, 953 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir.1992); and United States v. DiPrima, 472 F.2d 550, 551 (1st Cir.1973)). (ii) Apparent third-party authority. If a third party lacks actual authority to grant consent to the search of property or premises occupied by a defendant, authority may nevertheless exist under the doctrine of apparent authority. A third-party’s “[a]pparent authority arises from the reasonable, albeit erroneous, belief that the third party has the authority to provide valid consent.” United States v. Sanchez, 608 F.3d at 689. See United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d at 1133. “The apparent authority inquiry is an objective one: we must determine whether ‘the facts available to the officer at the moment ... warrant a man of reasonable caution [to believe] that the consenting [individual] had authority over the premises!.]’ ” United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d at 1128 (quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A third party has apparent authority “if the officer has a reasonable belief that the third party has ‘(1) mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access, or (2) control for most purposes over it.’ ” United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d at 1128 (quoting United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1329). “Even where actual authority is lacking ... a third party has apparent authority to consent to a search when an officer reasonably, even if erroneously, believes the third party possesses authority to consent.” United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711, 716 (10th Cir.2007)(holding that defendant’s father had apparent authority to consent to search of defendant’s computer). “[T]o satisfy the ‘reasonableness’ requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government ... is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable.” United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d at 716. The “reasonableness” requirement allows for officers to be mistaken in their assessment of a situation when executing their duties, as long as their mistakes are “those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of pro