exceptions.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “It is equally well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.” Id. “The Second Circuit has consistently held that consent need not be express but may be implied from an individual’s words, acts or conduct.” Seifert v. Rivera, 933 F.Supp.2d 307, 316 (D. Conn. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Thus a search may be lawful even if the person giving consent does not recite the talismanic phrase: ‘You have, my permission to search.’” United States v. Grant, 375 Fed.Appx. 79, 80 (2d Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). “So long as the police do- not coerce
holding that insufficient evidence supported the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine when officers executed a warrant on a small oneroom apartment and found large quantities of crackcocaine in plain view although the defendant supplied police with a false name when they questioned him at the apartment there was no evidence that the defendant had drugs on his person or that he had ever used cocaine holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police holding that where an undercover officers initial entry into an apartment was consensual the undercover officer witnessed the commission of a crime and upon leaving the apartment the undercover officer immediately notified his backup arrest team that was waiting a short distance away the backup teams subsequent nonconsensual entry into the apartment fifteen to twenty minutes later to make arrests was a component  of a single continuous and integrated police action and did not violate the fourth amendment holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found