That cuts against a finding of voluntariness. Cf. United States v. Holmes, 270 F. App'x 767, 769 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (vacating denial of motion to suppress when district court failed to consider the defendant's custodial status, even though other factors indicated voluntary consent). Considering the totality of the circumstances, however, it is clear that Defendant voluntarily allowed officers to search her home.
(1) the voluntariness of the defendant's custodial status; (2) the presence of coercive police procedure; (3) the extent and level of the defendant's cooperation with police; (4) the defendant's awareness of his right to refuse to consent to the search; (5) the defendant's education and intelligence; and (6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found.See United States v. Holmes, 270 F. App'x 767, 768 (11th Cir. 2008). It is the government's burden to prove that consent was voluntary.
There was no evidence that the Defendant knew he had the right to refuse his consent, however this knowledge is only one factor in determining the voluntariness of the consent and "`the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent.'" United States v. Holmes, 270 Fed. Appx. 767, 768 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227). The Defendant responded to the officers in an intelligent and appropriate manner.