by the court or it is wrenched from a reluctant defendant by threatening him with drastic consequences that the state may not lawfully impose. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (noting that the defendant must be made aware “of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” of a waiver in order to qualify as an intelligent — and hence valid — waiver of his constitutional rights); see also Cuffle, 906 F.2d at 392 (“A state denies a defendant due process of law by inducing him to waive constitutional rights by threats of consequences that the state cannot legally bring about.”). A misinformed consent is not an informed consent: the same is true of a waiver. Cf. United States v. Ochel-tre.e, 622 F.2d 992, 994 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). The question whether a waiver of a federal
holding waiver to search invalid when individual was implicitly threatened with illegal detention if he did not consent holding consent invalid where defendant signed consent form while undergoing custodial interrogation and only after he had been impliedly threatened that his girlfriend would be arrested if he did not sign holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention holding consent invalid where defendant threatened by officer that everyone in the house would go to jail if he did not sign consent form holding consent not voluntary where police threatened to arrest defendants girlfriend if he refused to sign consent form