and territorial courts). See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 392-95, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970)(concerning prosecutions by a State and political subdivisions of that State); Douglas v. Nixon, 459 F.2d 325, 326 (6th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 453, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972). The protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply until a defendant is put to trial before the trier of fact. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975); United States v. Gamble, 141 F.3d 621, 623 (6th C 2d 63 (1999). However, under certain circumstances, another prosecution may be allowed even after the defendant has been put to trial before a trier of fact. See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688-89, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)(<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Love, 597 F.2d 81,
holding that the double jeopardy clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment holding that a judge is entitled to absolute immunity even if he takes an action that violates the double jeopardy clause holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial holding inter alia that a search can be consented to even if a defendant to be advised that he is free to go