Probation Officers were not required to inform probationer of right to refuse consent to search of closed spaces. Consent was valid, not a mere acquiescence to authority.
No clear error in District Court's finding that probation officers' testimony of spoken acquiescence was sufficient and credible as unequivocal, free and voluntary.
Later spoken permission to search house sufficient to encompass crawlspaces.
Consent to later police search was valid despite lack of proof that deft knew that he could refuse.