dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that appellant McMullin’s consent to Deputy U.S. Marshal Newlin’s presence in his kitchen ended before appellant pointed out the firearms that were present in his home.
The Fourth Amendment suppression issue here cannot be resolved without careful consideration of how the fast moving events unfolded within minutes after Newlin’s consented entry into McMullin’s home. Sounds from Crowder’s apprehension in the backyard caused Newlin and McMullin to step outside. Then, after McMullin had clearly lied about Crowder’s identity, Newlin warned him about obstruction of justice, handcuffed him, and said “Well, let’s go back into the house and talk.” McMullin said nothing in response. He made no objection of any kind to Newlin’s reentry, only indicating that because of the handcuffs he needed assistance to manage the high step.
Back inside the house, McMullin did not protest or ask Newlin to leave. Instead, McMullin sat down at the kitchen table with the deputy and his aunt and uncle. Deputy Newlin asked McMullin whether he minded answering questions in front of his aunt and uncle. McMullin said “Yeah, that’s fine, I’ll talk,” and then admitted that he had known the man staying in his home was Crowder. After Newlin noticed ammunition in an ashtray, he asked McMullin whether there were firearms in the house. McMullin pointed to seven *818firearms lined up against the wall, and his aunt volunteered that a handgun was stashed in a desk drawer. Knowing that McMullin had a felony record, the deputy arrested him and seized the firearms.
It is undisputed that there was valid consent by McMullin for Deputy Newlin to enter his home at the outset. Once consent is given, it may be withdrawn, but only by an “unequivocal act or statement.” United States v. Gray, 369 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir.2004) (expressions of impatience do not amount to an unequivocal statement of withdrawal); United States v. Martel-Martines, 988 F.2d 855, 858 (8th Cir.1993) (passively watching in silence as search was expanded not sufficient to withdraw consent); see also United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768, 775 (8th Cir.2005) (repeated use of hands to block officer’s search of pockets demonstrated unequivocal withdrawal of consent).
Newlin left the house only to go into the backyard to assist his partner who was attempting to arrest Crowder. In the yard McMullin incriminated himself which gave Newlin reason to talk to him further. McMullin made no objection to his returning inside, and Newlin’s reason for reentering was within the scope of the consent granted by McMullin which was to talk and ask questions. See United States v. Castellanos, 518 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir.2008) (distinguishing consent for officer merely to enter from consent to a search). Newlin’s reentry was thus a continuation of his consented presence in the house.5
The burden remained on McMullin to withdraw affirmatively and unequivocally his consent for Newlin to be inside his home. The district court found that McMullin never withdrew his consent — a factual finding that we review for clear error, see Gray, 369 F.3d at 1026-27, and I see none. To ascertain whether McMullin withdrew his consent, we ask what “the typical reasonable person [would] have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). There is no evidence in the record to indicate that McMullin ever withdrew his consent, much less that he did so by an “unequivocal act or statement.” Gray, 369 F.3d at 1026.
McMullin had the opportunity to communicate that he did not consent to Newlin’s reentry, but he did nothing of the sort. He nevertheless now argues that Newlin should have understood that his consent had been withdrawn because he had to help McMullin back into the house and because McMullin would have been afraid to refuse him entry after watching the deputies arrest Crowder. This explanation is not only late, but it is unpersuasive because McMullin did not take any action to communicate that his consent was withdrawn. After Newlin suggested that the two men go back into the house, McMullin indicated that he physically could not make the step. This could reasonably have been interpreted as a request for Newlin’s assistance and continuing consent to Newlin’s presence. Moreover, McMullin never told Newlin that he was afraid not to let him in. Withdrawal of consent requires an “unequivocal act or statement” which makes an officer aware that it has been withdrawn. Gray, 369 F.3d at 1026.
McMullin also acquiesced in Newlin’s questioning after they were back inside. See United States v. Parker, 412 F.3d 1000, 1002 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that a *819suspect’s assistance to officers conducting a search was inconsistent with having withdrawn consent for that search). Under these circumstances a reasonable person could conclude that McMullin had not withdrawn his consent, and in fact, McMullin himself testified before the grand jury that he had “allowed [the deputies] to search [his] bedroom and every other area of the house they wanted to.” (emphasis added).
None of the cases cited by the majority, including United States v. Weston, 443 F.3d 661 (8th Cir.2006), United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir.2006), and United States v. Carter, 854 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir.1988), involve facts remotely analogous to those in this case. In Weston and Carter, the police saw contraband during a consented entry but seized it only after obtaining a search warrant. 443 F.3d at 665, 854 F.2d at 1105. The suggestion that Newlin should have obtained a search warrant ignores the critical fact that he had not entered the home in order to search, but rather only to question McMullin. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d at 974, is inapposite because there the defendant specifically refused to allow officers to enter his home.
Given the lack of evidence that McMullin ever made an unequivocal act or statement to withdraw his consent for Deputy Newlin to be in his house, the majority seeks to reframe the question to be whether McMullin ever granted a second consent to enter. As support for that theory, it urges that the purpose for the deputies’ visit had been accomplished once Crowder was arrested. That approach overlooks the fact that the intervening events had raised reasonable suspicion about whether McMullin had violated the law by knowingly harboring Crowder or by obstructing justice in lying about his identity. The deputies were not required to ignore evidence that another crime may have been committed. McMullin told Newlin several lies about Crowder’s presence and identity, raising a reasonable suspicion that McMullin had made a false statement to a federal agent. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2009); United States v. Lanier, 578 F.2d 1246, 1249 (8th Cir.1978) (knowingly and willfully making a false statement related to a material matter within federal jurisdiction). Newlin was therefore justified in detaining McMullin for further questioning. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
McMullin’s house was a practical and appropriate location for further questioning, and Newlin had a legal basis for reentering the house. McMullin and Newlin had been standing within the curtilage, McMullin had left the back door open, and was only wearing gym shorts on a chilly morning. See United States v. Montano—Gudino, 309 F.3d 501, 503-04 (8th Cir.2002) (reasonable to move a suspect inside for questioning when it was snowing heavily). Newlin would have been justified in arresting McMullin for making false statements, and his decision to question McMullin inside his house was not unreasonable. Once inside, Newlin did not conduct a protective sweep or search of the residence, and there is no evidence that his reentry was a pretext to search. It was only when he saw the ammunition in plain view that he asked if there were any firearms.
Since Newlin had legal authority to be in McMullin’s house when he saw the ammunition in plain view and McMullin pointed out the firearms, I would affirm the district court and respectfully dissent from the suppression of this legally obtained evidence.
. The majority expresses concern about any rule that would permit law enforcement officers to “enter and exit a home at will’’ after once obtaining consent to enter. The facts of this case, however, have nothing to do with “at will’’ entries.