Judge. The defendant, Timothy Bailey, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the house where he resided. As we conclude that the investigatory stop of the vehicle Bailey was in was based upon reasonable well-founded suspicion, see Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993), and that the written consent to search obtained from Bailey was freely and voluntarily given, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546,
holding that custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a  consent to search holding that once initial consent to search has been given passive acquiescence broadens the scope of search recognizing that custody while not determinative in itself places a heavy burden in showing consent was voluntarily given and noting that custody when coupled with other coercive factors will normally necessitate the conclusion that the consent is not effective holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence