call, a reasonable police officer would have been especially cautious in obtaining clear consent from an individual with impaired speech who makes a nonsensical, non-responsive statement in answer to the officer’s request. Cf. United States v. Cedano-Medina, 366 F.3d 682, 685-88 (8th Cir.2004) (finding voluntary consent in spite of a language barrier and the defen-, dant’s varying answers to whether police could search his truck in part because the English-speaking police officer asked the Spanish-speaking defendant repeatedly until he was satisfied that the defendant had consented). In this unique situation, Swierk or Mitchell clearly should have confirmed their belief that Antone had consented to the entry of his home. Cf. United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838, 847-49 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Whitfield, 939 F.2d 1071,
holding that evidence was admissible under the good faith exception where the affidavit contained a detailed description of the nature of the offense the premises to be searched the items for which they were searching and the transaction which led the informant to believe that the drugs would be in this apartment holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding that the pittsburgh police department did not illegally terminate an officers hla benefits and that the police department was entitled to a subrogation interest against the officers thirdparty settlement recognizing without inquiring whether the officers would necessarily have arrested the defendant that the discovery of the marijuana in the van provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and upon arrest the officers unquestionably would have searched the defendant and discovered the marijuana in his pocket holding in the context of thirdparty consent that the lack of an expressed interest in the items searched in conjunction with the purpose of the police officers presence created an ambiguous situation and that under rodriguez the officer should have inquired further