United States v. Strache, 202 F.3d 980, 985 (7th
Cir. 2000); Valance v. Wisel, 110 F.3d 1269, 1278
(7th Cir. 1997). The government bears the burden
of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that consent was freely and voluntarily given.
Id. In this case, there is no claim that Raibley
was somehow coerced into giving his consent to
view the videotape. The question, rather, is
whether he actually consented to the viewing or,
at most, simply acquiesced to a show of
authority. The latter is insufficient to
demonstrate consent. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S.
491, 497, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1324 (1983).
In view of the factual nature of the consent
determination, we review the district court’s
resolution of that question for clear error.
E.g., United States v. Shelby, 121 F.3d 1118,
1120 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 928,
118 S. Ct. 2325 (1998).
"A finding is ’clearly erroneous’ when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed." United States v. United States
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92
L.Ed. 746 (1948). "Where there are two
permissible views of the evidence, the
factfinder’s choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous." Anderson v. Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d
518 (1985). If the district court’s account of
the facts is plausible in light of the record
viewed in its entirety, we may not reverse that
decision even if we may have decided the case
differently. See id. at 573-74, 105 S. Ct. 1504
(noting that if there are two possible
understandings of the evidence, the factfinder’s
conclusion cannot be clearly erroneous);
[citation omitted]. Furthermore, any reasonable
doubts we may harbor should be resolved in favor
of the district court’s ruling "in light of its
greater immersion in the case." Cook v. City of
Chicago, 192 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 1999).
Central States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund v.
Kroger Co., 226 F.3d 903, 910 (7th Cir. 2000),
amended in other respects, 2001 WL 204762 (7th
Cir. Feb. 2, 2001), petition for cert. filed, No.
00-1304 (U.S. Feb. 14, 2001); see also, e.g.,
United States v. Denberg, 212 F.3d 987, 991 (7th
Cir. 2000); United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d
829, 836 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1096, 120 S. Ct. 837 (2000).
Although he believed that the question was
close, see Suppr. Tr. at 211, Judge McDade
concluded that Raibley did consent to Lindburg’s
review of the videotape. He based that finding on