Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 557, 100 S.Ct. 1870; People v. Licea, 918 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Colo.1996). While reviewing courts typically defer to the trial court's findings of fact, we must overturn the trial court's ruling when it is clearly erroneous or not supported by the record. See Mendoza-Balderama, 981 P.2d at 158. This is the case here. While a language barrier may be relevant to evaluate a suspect's ability to act voluntarily, it is not determinative in this case. See United States v. Hernandez, 893 F.Supp. 952, 961 (D.Kan.1995) (citations omitted). The record does no ndant freely and voluntarily consented when there was no evidence that the officers made threats or promises that would affect the defendant's judgment); People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342, 1343-44 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The trial court may have been confused
holding probationers acceptance of search provision of parole agreement did not constitute freely and voluntarily given consent 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 consent invalid when given under coercive circumstances in which police misrepresented that they had a warrant to search the home holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion