Espinoza-Flores

MEMORANDUM **

Lalo Espinoza-Flores appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision.

Espinoza-Flores does not dispute that he consented orally and in writing to the search of his residence, but argues that his consent was not voluntary. We review a district court’s determination that a defendant voluntarily consented to a search for “clear error.” United States v. Enslin, 327 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.2003). Five factors are relevant: “(1) whether the defendant was in custody; (2) whether the arresting officers had their guns drawn; (3) whether Miranda warnings were given; (4) whether the defendant was notified that [the defendant] had a right not to consent; and (5) whether the defendant had been told a search warrant could be obtained.” United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d 494, 502 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Espinoza-Flores was in custody and testified that the officers falsely told him that they already had a search warrant for his residence. In addition, it is unclear whether…