2005) (“A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.”); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (stating for Miranda rights to be necessary, a police interrogation must be custodial; the questions must be asked after the suspect has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way). In their haste to obtain appellant’s consent to search his residence, the officers did not read appellant his Miranda rights when he was arrested or before he gave written consent to search. The officers’ failure to give appellant Miranda warnings is a factor indicating appellant’s consent was the product of duress and coercion. Finally, in a last ditch effort to obtain consen th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Given the totality of the circumstances, the
holding consent invalid where defendant signed consent form while undergoing custodial interrogation and only after he had been impliedly threatened that his girlfriend would be arrested if he did not sign holding that defendant voluntarily consented where defendants only basis for coercion was that the officers said that if he did not consent they would get a warrant which would take a while holding waiver to search invalid when individual was implicitly threatened with illegal detention if he did not consent holding consent invalid where defendant threatened by officer that everyone in the house would go to jail if he did not sign consent form holding consent not voluntary where police threatened to arrest defendants girlfriend if he refused to sign consent form