one. Hudson v. Hall, 231 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)). “To determine whether consent was given voluntarily, [the court] consider[s]: (1) whether the defendant was free to leave; (2) whether coercive police procedures were employed; (3) the extent of the defendant’s cooperation or awareness of a right to refuse consent; (4) whether the defendant could refuse to consent; (5) the extent of the defendant’s education and intelligence; and (6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence would be found.” Smith, 199 Fed.Appx. at 763 (citing United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir.2002)). Compare United States v. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d 1529, 1535-36 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) with United States of America v. Welch, 683
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 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 the implied consent law allows law enforcement officers to obtain blood in circumstances in which a warrant or actual consent may otherwise be required holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given