Accordingly, we uphold the challenged finding of consent. 2. Withdrawal of Consent Schaefer submits that, even if he voluntarily consented to the search of his computer, he revoked that consent when he turned the computer off after an agent found child pornography images on the machine. We identify no clear error in the district court’s finding that a reasonable officer would not have understood this conduct, by itself, to be a withdrawal of consent. See generally Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251-52, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) (setting forth objective reasonableness test for scope of consent, but observing that “[a] suspect may of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents”); United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Insofar as Schaefer testified that, when
holding that a landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added holding that implied consent that has been withdrawn or revoked by a suspect cannot serve as a substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the fourth amendment requires recognizing that suppression is not warranted if officers had an erroneous but reasonable belief of authority to consent holding that police officers warrantless search of rented home with consent of landlord but not tenant violated tenants fourth amendment rights