With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession or consent to search.- Similarly, under Schneckloth, the absence of proof that Watson knew he could withhold his consent, though it may be a factor in the overall judgment, is not to be given controlling significance. There is no indication in this record that Watson was a newcomer to the law, mentally deficient, or unable in the face of a custodial arrest to exercise a free choice. He was ■ given Miranda warnings and was further cautioned that the results of the search of his car could be used against him. He persisted in his consent. Id. at 424-25, 96 S.Ct. 820 (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 557-59, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (<HOLDING>). POLICE DECEPTION OR MISREPRESENTATION This

A: holding that a defendants consent to accompany dea agents from the detroit airport to the dea office was voluntary when she was asked to accompany the officers there were no threats or show of force and the officers told her twice that she could decline to consent
B: holding that consent was coerced when officers told defendants wife they came to search the premises and she allowed them to enter
C: holding that complaining witnesss passive submission to her fathers act of carnal intercourse with her without her consent and that she failed to outcry or resist because she was frightened were insufficient to show she was not an accomplice
D: holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant
A.