for speeding. Under the bright-line rule set out by the Tenth Circuit the traffic stop in this case, as a matter of law, never became a consensual encounter. The police conduct in this case would have conveyed to Seeley that he was not free to decline Sgt. Bairett’s requests or otherwise terminate the encounter and proceed on his way. A search preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation may remain valid if the consent to search was voluntary in fact under the totality of the circumstances. McSwain, 29 F.3d at 562 (quoting Fernandez, 18 F.3d at 881). However, “[t]he government bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of consent, and that burden is heavier when consent is given after an illegal detention.” Id.; see also United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While no single factor is determinative, “the
holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding that employer bears the burden of proving applicability of flsa exemptions