related to the search of the motel room should be dismissed because (1) the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim given that Mehta consented to the search, and (2) the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was arguable consent to conduct the search. Dkt. No. 33, at 21, 31. “[P]olice may conduct a warrantless search of [a] motel room so long as the occupant voluntarily consents.” United States v. Smith, 199 Fed.Appx. 759, 763 (11th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Butler, 102 F.3d 1191, 1197 (11th Cir.1997)). “In assessing voluntariness, the inquiry is factual and depends on the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1355 (11th Cir.2004). Importantly, the voluntariness inquiry is a “heavily f 1304, 1308-09 (11th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiffs’ facts supporting their
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 district courts finding of consent was not clearly erroneous when the defendant consented after officers told him they could get a drug dog even though the defendant knew the dog would alert 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 the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his bedroom based upon evidence that defendant 1 did not contest the fact that he had voluntarily given verbal consent to the search 2 did not appear to be nervous or scared and was cooperative with the officers 3 led officers to his bedroom and 4 was present for the search and did not indicate at any time that he wished to revoke his consent holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant