THE EFFECT OF PRIOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY POLICE ON THE VALIDITY OF A CONSENT TO SEARCH IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION WHEN TESTIMONIAL OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS SEIZED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PRIMARY ILLEGALITY (I.E., UNLAWFUL ARREST, UNREASONABLE SEARCH). THIS DOES NOT HOLD WHEN THE CAUSE/EFFECT RELATIONSHIP IS DISRUPTED BY INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHEN THE EVIDENCE SEIZED IS THE PRODUCT OF AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE RATHER THAN THE PRIOR ILLEGALITY. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONSENT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE CONSENTING PARTY. THE CONSENTER MAY IMPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THE SEARCH, AND ANY EXTENSION OF THE SEARCH BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES EXPRESSED IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL; EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED IS SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION. IN STATE V. KOUCOULES (1974), THE MAINE SUPREME COURT FORMED PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE GENERALLY APPLIED BY BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS: (1) A CONSENT TO SEARCH IS REASONABLE AND LEGAL TO THE EXTENT THE INDIVIDUAL ALLOWS; (2) LIMITATIONS ON THE SEARCH MAY BE IMPLIED BY THE CONSENTER'S LANGUAGE OR CONDUCT; (3) THE CONSENT MAY BE MADE CONDITIONAL UPON THE CONSENTER'S PRESENCE DURING THE CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH; (4) A TIME LIMIT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE DURATION OF THE SEARCH; (5) PERMISSION MAY BE GIVEN TO SEARCH ONLY FOR A PARTICULAR OBJECT; AND (6) RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON THE AREAS OR SPACE TO BE SEARCHED. USUALLY, THE CONSENT TO SEARCH MAY BE REVOKED OR MODIFIED BY THE CONSENTER AT ANY TIME, ALTHOUGH SOME STATE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT CONSENT MAY NOT BE REVOKED DURING THE SEARCH. WHILE A SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS CONSENT IS PREFERRED, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH CONSENT TO SEARCH MAY BE IMPLIED. WHILE SILENCE TO A REQUEST FOR SEARCH MAY NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTE CONSENT, CONDUCT OR GESTURES OF THE PARTY (E.G., STEPPING BACK AND PERMITTING ENTRY OR GIVING THE OFFICER THE KEYS) CAN BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT PERMISSION IF THEY ARE MADE VOLUNTARILY. IT IS BEST TO CLARIFY THE CONSENTER'S RESPONSE; HOWEVER, IF THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN AMBIGUOUS OR EQUIVOCAL, VALID CONSENT MAY BE ASSUMED. ALTHOUGH PERMISSION TO ENTER MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONSENT TO SEARCH, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO SCRUTINY MAY BE SEIZED LAWFULLY AND INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED WHICH PROVIDES GROUNDS OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH OR ARREST. FOR PARTS 1-5 AND 7, SEE NCJ 48103-48107 AND 48109. (JAP)