Whether an appellate court should review de novo or for clear error a district court's finding that a defendant did not voluntarily consent to a search

QUESTION PRESENTED In the context of the Fourth Amendment, this Court has characterized the voluntariness of consent to a search as “a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). Consistent with that, almost every federal court of appeals reviews voluntaryconsent findings under a deferential clear-error standard. Only the Eleventh Circuit applies a different standard, reviewing voluntariness determinations de novo, at least where the circumstances surrounding the consent are uncontested. It applied that same standard in this case, identifying no clear error yet reversing a district court’s factual finding that Mr. Burwell did not consent voluntarily. The question presented is: Whether an appellate court should review de novo or for clear error a district court’s finding that a defendant did not voluntarily consent to a search. i LIST OF RELATED CASES 1. United States v. Cantrell Burwell, Case No. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 29, 2018. 2. United States v. Cantrell Burwell, No. 18-13039, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Opinion entered on February 27, 2019. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc denied on May 1, 2019. ii