necessary for the panel to decide this question, because the receiver voluntarily consented to the FBI agent’s seizure of the materials. The district court found that the receiver “did not ask for a subpoena; he only asked that [the FBI agent] provide him with an inventory of the documents taken,” and that the receiver said, prior to being served with a subpoena, that the FBI agent “was free to look around the building and to collect whatever files he needed.” R.R. at 26-27. Consent to a search may be voluntary even if the person giving the consent has already been served with a subpoena for the items to be seized, to say nothing of the case here, where the receiver consented when he had not yet been served with a subpoena. See United States v. Susskind, 965 F.2d 80, 87 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), vacated, 975 F.2d 1206 (6th Cir. 1992),
holding where officer falsely represented he had a valid search warrant consent not voluntary 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 a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served