two cases cited by the State in support of its position, Gonzalez and Tovar-Rico, are inapposite. At issue in both cases was whether or not the consent was freely given, not whether a retroactive consent va .Ed.2d 1138 (1978); Martin v. United States (D.C. 1989), 567 A.2d 896, 906 n. 23 (“We assume without deciding (since the point has not been briefed or argued) that consent. .. can be retroactive, provided that the person giving the consent intends it to be retroactive.”). On the other hand, we also located cases that, although distinguishable from this case to varying degrees, all fairly stand for the proposition that a consent must precede a search and seizure for it to provide a valid exception to the warrant requirement. See U.S. v. Wilson (5th Cir. 1994), 36 F.3d 1298, 1304-05 (<HOLDING>)(emphasis in original); United States v.
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 a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure holding that hotel night clerks consent to search an occupied guest room was not valid consent and the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible holding that evidence was inadmissible because it was not within the scope of defendants oral preseizure consent to a cursory visual inspection and the seizure was conducted prior to not pursuant to the defendants written consent to conduct a complete search holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent