What is the burden of proving consent given by the court to the prosecution in a case where a man with a history of drug abuse was arrested after a consensual encounter with a police officer?

methamphetamine, and established probable cause for defendant's arrest. The fact that there may have been an innocent explanation for each of the symptoms does not, contrary to defendant's contention, compel us to conclude probable cause was lacking. "When, as here, the facts known to an officer are sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest, the possibility of an innocent explanation does not vitiate probable cause and does not render an arrest unlawful. [Citation.]" (Johnson v. Lewis (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 443, 453.)

The fact that the court did not err in finding the initial encounter was consensual and the arrest was supported by probable cause means defendant's consent to the officers entry into his motel room after the arrest was not the product of a Fourth Amendment violation. Defendant additionally contends, however, the prosecution did not prove defendant went willingly with the officers "back to his room in order to obtain [his] keys." The prosecution bears the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given. (Bumper v. State of North Carolina (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 548.) "The People may discharge the foregoing burdens by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations.]" (People v. James, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 106, fn. 4.)