TO PROPERLY INFORM POLICE OFFICERS AND LEGAL PERSONNEL OF THE EFFECT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RESTRICTIONS ON POLICE SEARCHES, THE FILM DRAMATIZES CONSENT SEARCHES AND SUBSEQUENT POLICE DISCUSSIONS WITH PROSECUTORS. A CONSENT WILL BE DEEMED INVALID BY THE COURTS IF IT IS THE RESULT OF DURESS OR COERCION, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THE MOST OBVIOUS SOURCE FOR A DEFENSE CLAIM OF COERCION IS EVIDENCE OF THE DISPLAY OF WEAPONS BY THE OFFICERS. THE USE OF WEAPONS MAY BE AN INDISPENSIBLE TACTIC TO THE ARREST OF A FELONY SUSPECT. HOWEVER, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THE PARTY WHO MAY CONSENT TO A SEARCH IS NOT INTIMIDATED AND NOT COERCED. THUS, IF THE POLICE WHO ARE PERMITTED INTO AN APARTMENT AFTER PROPERLY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES, HOLSTER THEIR WEAPONS AFTER HANDCUFFING THE SUSPECT, THE CONSENT OF THE SUSPECT TO A SEARCH OF THE PREMISES COULD BE VALID. NEVERTHELESS, COURTS SCRUTINIZE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ARREST AND THE SEARCH. SUCH FACTORS AS THE SUSPECT'S CALM, RELAXED MANNER, AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME BEING INVESTIGATED WOULD JUSTIFY THE ADMISSION OF A REVOLVER FOUND IN THE SUSPECT'S KITCHEN. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE MIGHT BE EXCLUDED IF THE SUSPECT'S DURESS WAS IMPLIED FROM HIS NOT CONSENTING TO THE SEARCH UNTIL AFTER HIS BEING HANDCUFFED AND ARRESTED. THE CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS OF A SUSPECT, SUCH AS PROVIDING KEYS TO OPEN LOCKED DESKS, WOULD INDICATE THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF CONSENT. IF A SUSPECT DOES NOT STATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH, THEN THE OFFICER SHOULD SO INFORM THE PERSON. (TWK)