In another case involving a DEA’s interaction with a bus passenger in Albuquerque, the officer was friendly enough, but the parting colloquy was “Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Sir, would you give me permission just to pat you down for contraband?” Defendant’s response is inaudible or there wasn’t one. The court finds that the government failed in its burden of proving that consent was voluntarily given, and that suppression was required. United States v. Muse, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219057 (D.N.M. Dec. 20, 2019), reconsideration denied, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24404 (D. N.M. Feb. 12, 2020) (court just has too many questions about the credibility of the officer and the USAO taking the fall for tempering his language about the search doesn’t help them. “A search of someone’s genitals implicates Fourth Amendment privacy concerns that a search of someone’s ‘abdomen’ does not. Last, the Court agrees with the defense that the fact that Perry was acting under the instruction of members of the United States Attorney’s Office does not absolve him of responsibility for the misleading language he used or restore his credibility. Doc. 78 at 4. SA Perry is ultimately the person who conducted the search of Mr. Muse, and he is the person who swore to the truthfulness of his complaint in front of a United States Magistrate Judge. See Doc. 2 at 1.”

The gun in the car would have inevitably been found by an inventory because the car was subject to being towed. United States v. Pierson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218946 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 20, 2019).*