U.S. 128, 134, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). 44 . Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (internal citations omitted). 45 . United States v. Garcia, 56 F.3d 418, 422 (2d Cir.1995) (emphasis added). Accord Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) ("[A] search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible.”). 46 . Garcia, 56 F.3d at 422 (quoting United States v. Wilson, 11 F.3d 346, 352 (2d Cir.1993)). 47 . See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 241-42, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (explaining the differences between criminal procedure rights associated with trial, and criminal procedure rights associated with search). See also Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122
holding that the fourth amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is free to go before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary holding inter alia that a search can be consented to even if a defendant to be advised that he is free to go holding that a search can be consented to even if a defendant does not subjectively feel free to leave holding that a defendant need not be advised of the right to terminate questioning at any time holding that the double jeopardy clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment