What is the burden of proving consent in a motion to suppress evidence seized in a search?

In response to a motion to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search, the prosecution bears the burden to prove police conducted the search under a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. (People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 830, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232, 3 P.3d 878 (Camacho ).) When the prosecution asserts that a defendant has consented to a search, the prosecution bears the additional burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's manifestation of consent was the product of his [or her] free will and not a mere submission to an express or implied assertion of authority. (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 106, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135.)

B. Reasonable Suspicion Supported the Initial Period of Detention