Smoker

The United States appeals from an order granting Defendant Vernon Smoker’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a consensual search of his van. The district court determined that Smoker’s consent was coerced and involuntary. We review the district court’s finding of voluntariness for clear error, United States v. Kaplan, 895 F.2d 618, 622 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Whether consent to search was voluntarily given or not is determined from the totality of all the circumstances. United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir.1997). Under a totality of the circumstances inquiry, we do not merely tally the relevant factors and arrive at a mathematically certain result; rather, our inquiry requires a “careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case,” permitting reversal only where the district court’s determination is clearly erroneous. Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 233 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

*571 The government argues that the district court gave undue weight to Officer Hart-sell’s failure to inform Smoker of his right to refuse consent, in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s holdings in United States v.…