Was the District Court's denial of Petitioner's Motion to Suppress a result of clear error in determining the facts relative to consent for search versus acquiescence to apparent lawful authority?

Question for Review During a routine traffic stop, Petitioner consented to the search of his car by a law enforcement officer. The officer, upon concluding the search, asked Petitioner if he had his wallet. Petitioner clarified the question then answered that he did have his wallet and reached for it in his back pocket. While Petitioner had the wallet in his hand, and it possibly had been partially removed from his pocket, the officer stated. “Let me see it for a moment” then took it from Petitioner’s hand. The ensuing search of the wallet extended the investigation which revealed incriminating information. Petitioner, arguing that the warrantless wallet search was unreasonable, sought to suppress the evidence recovered as a result of the wallet search. The District Court Denied the Motion to Suppress. A panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 21 to uphold the District Court’s denial holding the District Court did not commit clear error. Was the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Suppress a result of clear error in determining the facts relative to consent for search versus acquiescence to apparent lawful authority? 1