that Pacheco signed a consent form before the officers searched his home. (Id. at 405-06). But later, he clarified that he only saw Pacheco sign the consent form(s) after the search was complete. (Id. at 408, 433-34, 436-37). 9 . Deputy Stickel put it best; “This was not an average traffic stop.” (Doc. 40, PageID 281). 10 . Pacheco does not argue that his fingerprints must be suppressed due- to the officers’ failure to provide Miranda warnings. Nor could he. As several courts have concluded, "the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which, in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.” United States v. Lara-Garcia, 478 F.3d 1231, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Flores-Sandoval, 474 F.3d
holding that even if defendant were in custody a miranda violation would not require suppression of his fingerprints because the fifth amendments self incrimination clause offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting quotation omitted holding that because code  19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation holding that suppression of derivative evidence from a miranda violation cannot be justified  under the supreme courts closefit requirement holding that miranda violation did not require suppression of immigrants fingerprints holding that the fifth amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a miranda violation where the statement was voluntary