in the record that he was so upset as to be acting irrationally, and there is nothing in the record that suggests that the officers obtained the defendant’s consent by means of duress, coercion, or intimidation. In particular, there is nothing in the record that suggests that the officers pressured him to open the lock box or that he was adamant in stating that the passport was not in it. Compare United States v. Jones, 523 F. 3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2008) (arrest of defendant in his hotel room by “ten to fifteen” law enforcement officers, with “guns drawn,” did not render his subsequent consent to the officers to search the room involuntary where “there was no indication” the defendant “was mistreated” by the officers); Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 903, 904 & n.5 (2003) (<HOLDING>). See also Commonwealth v. Franco, 419 Mass.
holding verbal consent given by woman after being placed under arrest was voluntaiy holding consent was given involuntarily when a reasonable person would not have felt they had the choice to withhold consent to search holding that consent given immediately after an illegal stop was vitiated by the illegality holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given