consenting to a search and the nature of the detention, and (4) any police use of “coercive or punishing conduct” to obtain the consent. Id. Whether consent to search was given is ordinarily a question of fact; however, when the validity of that consent is based on “the application of an overriding legal principle,” we review the validity de novo. United States v. Guimond, 116 F.3d 166, 169 (6th Cir.1997). The magistrate judge found, and the district court agreed, that Lewis’s consent to the search of the hotel room was freely and voluntarily given. Lewis does not challenge this finding on appeal. Lewis instead claims in his appellate brief that his consent to the search of his hotel room “was invalid because the consent rson in United States v. Patane, 304 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Subsequent to the filing of the appellate
holding evidence that derived so immediately from violation is fruit of illegality and should be suppressed holding that the fifth amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a miranda violation where the statement was voluntary holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed