determining voluntariness of consent). Armendariz did not display his weapon and the search took place during the day near a public highway. See id. Although Armendariz did not inform defendant of her right to refuse consent, this failure is only one factor to consider. Id. Finally, even though Armendariz had not returned defendant’s driver’s license and registration to her, valid consent may be given by a person being detained. Nicholson, 983 F.2d at 988. Based on the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find that a reasonable border patrol agent would have understood defendant’s act of reopening the' trunk to indicate her consent to resume the search. See United States v. Benitez, 899 F.2d 995, 998 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We further hold that defendant’s consent was
holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search and the patdown of his person did not exceed the scope of his consent which included a search of the groin area holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not 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 defendant who did not verbally assent to search nonetheless voluntarily consented by opening trunk and suitcase holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable