HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge.
Defendant Maez (Maez) was charged with armed bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) (1982) and aiding and abetting, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1982). He filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home and truck and incriminating statements he made thereafter. That motion was denied after a suppression hearing and the evidence was admitted at trial. Maez was convicted. He appeals, arguing that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
The paramount question presented is whether a violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), occurred when a number of armed officers and a SWAT team, having no warrant for an arrest, surrounded a mobile home occupied by Maez, his wife and children, and over loud speakers asked the occupants to remove themselves from the home, which they did, Maez then being taken into custody. We hold that a violation and unlawful arrest occurred. Because evidence obtained after the arrest and admitted at trial over Maez’ objection was tainted, we reverse.
I
Factual Background and Procedural Posture
A.
The Arrest of Maez
Two men robbed an Albuquerque bank on Friday, August 14, 1987. A bank customer reported that an early 1960’s Ford or Dodge pickup truck with a wooden tailgate and a New Mexico license plate number KO-1919 was involved in the robbery. There was no such number, but an FBI dispatcher found that license number KD-1919 belonged to a 1959 Ford pickup truck registered to Maez. A description of the truck, both robbers, and Maez’ address was given over the radio.
Deputy Sheriff Pacheco heard the broadcast at 3:00 p.m. He knew Maez and contacted a confidential informant who knew where Maez lived. The informant directed Pacheco to the Maez’ home. At the home he saw a truck matching the description he had been given. By now it was 3:30 p.m. II R. 18-19. Pacheco left and the Albuquerque police department and FBI were contacted. The Maez home was left unguarded between approximately 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. Pacheco returned at approximately 4:30 p.m. after meeting with his supervisor. From that point on the trailer (which had only one exit — the front door) was under surveillance. The truck at the residence was later identified as the getaway truck.
Several Albuquerque police officers, a SWAT team and the FBI met in a restau[1447]*1447rant parking lot to plan Maez’ arrest.1 They arrived at the Maez’ home between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. Ill R. 106. SWAT team members dressed in black surrounded the trailer and (over loud speakers) asked the occupants of the home to come out. II R. 38-39; III R. 143. None of the officers went to the door. Mrs. Maez heard some commotion outside. When she looked out the front door she saw her fifteen year old son walking across the street with his hands in the air. She watched as he was searched and handcuffed. An FBI agent testified the boy was handcuffed; he was never a suspect in the robbery however. Ill R. 132. There were rifles pointed at the house. Ill R. 152. Mrs. Maez told her husband what was happening and he looked outside and said, “we have to go outside_” III R. 152. Mr. and Mrs. Maez were told to exit one at a time.
B.
Mrs. Maez’ Consents to Search
By the time Mrs. Maez had left the trailer it was approximately 6:45 p.m. II R. 49-50; III R. 75. She was escorted, with her two month old baby, outside the trailer park fence, past approximately ten police officers and into the presence of five more. Shortly thereafter, she was asked to read and sign consent forms authorizing a search of the trailer. She owned the trailer. Police officer Whitson filled in the blanks on an Albuquerque police department consent form and explained the form to Mrs. Maez before she signed it.2 Mrs. Maez was given time to read the form.3 No evidence was seized pursuant to this consent. II R. 44-45.
After she had signed the Albuquerque police department consent form, Mrs. Maez was asked to sign an FBI consent to search form. Agent Guyman explained that they would be looking for money, weapons, or clothing. He told Mrs. Maez that her husband had been arrested. Guyman filled out the form and had Mrs. Maez read it out loud. Agent Marrero, who was present when the form was signed, testified that Mrs. Maez was visibly upset when she signed the form. She said that she signed the forms only because she had to. Ill R. 97, 157.4 A bag containing $5,800, a blue stocking cap, a box of ammunition, and two red bandannas were seized. Mrs. Maez signed a third consent to search form relating to her personal automobile; no evidence was seized from the automobile.5
C.
Maez’ Interrogation
Maez was taken into custody by the Albuquerque Police Department and turned over to the FBI at approximately 7:15 p.m. The officers asked if they could search the trailer and vehicles and when they indicated they had no search warrant, Maez [1448]*1448said no.6 He was then taken to an interview room where he was given Miranda warnings and signed a waiver of rights form. There was no conversation prior to their arrival. It was now 8:00 p.m. Maez’ interrogation lasted for an hour and one half. II R. 35. He signed a consent to search form relating to his truck during the interrogation. Guyman was called and he searched the truck.
During the interrogation FBI agent Ga-ray asked Maez about the dark veins on his arm. Maez admitted that he used heroin three times a week and said that he had taken two valiums two hours before he was taken into custody. Ill R. 122. Maez explained that he had been driving his pickup in the vicinity of the bank (picking up pop cans) on the day of the robbery. He also admitted ownership of the cap found outside the bank doors. However, when Agent Denniston explained where it had been found, Maez denied that it was his. Agent Garay testified that about three quarters of the way through the interview, Maez vomited. Ill R. 135. The interview continued. Garay testified that Maez did not appear to him to be confused, frightened, or under the influence of drugs. Maez said that he felt dizzy from the vali-ums and that he was confused by the questions of the three officers. Ill R. 145-146.
D.
The Trial Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Suppress
The trial court orally denied the motion to suppress. The court found that “there was probable cause to arrest the defendant,” a fact not disputed on appeal. II R. 162-164. The court further found that Maez was arrested “legally ... after he came out of his trailer.” II R. 164.
The court found that “while the circumstances may have been tense and while the environment may not have been ... ideal ..., that nevertheless [Ms. Patsy Maez] voluntarily and willingly gave the officers a permission to search.” II R. 164. The court concluded that all of the items which were seized from the trailer were “legally and validly taken under the permission to search....” II R. 164.
The court further found that after being given Miranda warnings, Maez willingly and knowingly gave permission to search the Ford pickup “in which the holster was found.” II R. 165. The court held that the statements made by Maez, including the statements regarding his cap, were “knowingly and willingly given” after he had been given Miranda warnings. II R. 165.
E.
Evidence At Trial
At trial, bank teller Christina Carlsen testified that one of the robbers was wearing a hat and had a red bandanna over his face. The bandanna, which was found during the search of the trailer conducted pursuant to the FBI consent form signed by Mrs. Maez, was admitted into evidence. Carlson identified Maez as the taller of the two robbers and the one who struck Mariana Griego, another teller, unconscious with the gun he was carrying. Griego identified Maez as one of the robbers. IV R. 111. She said that he put a gun under her chin. Griego said that although she could not clearly see his face during the robbery (because it was covered by the bandanna and he was wearing a cap), she was able to see his eyes, a mustache, and dark graying hair. She remembered Maez being about five feet seven inches tall. Griego also said that she recognized a number of tattoos on Maez’ arms and on the web of his thumb. IV R. 105-114.
On the way out of the bank, one of the robbers hit Ernest Harrison, Jr., vice presi[1449]*1449dent of the bank (and a former FBI agent) and knocked him to the ground. The taller robber’s hat fell off. Harrison followed the robbers around a corner and saw them leaving in a light colored pickup with a wooden tailgate. He said that the taller robber was wearing grey pants and was approximately five feet nine inches tall. IV R. 42-43. At the same time, a bank customer, Michael Barnes, saw what he thought was a gun and followed the truck to see the license plate number. He reported the number and also described the truck as an early 1960’s Ford with a wooden tailgate. He testified that the taller robber was wearing a light blue shirt. He also identified photographs of the truck.
A box of .25 caliber ammunition, which was found in Maez’ trailer during the search, was admitted in evidence, as were the bandannas, cash totalling $5,844, and various pictures of the items seized. The cash consisted of 294 one dollar bills, 118 five dollar bills, 71 ten dollar bills, 120 twenty dollar bills, 7 fifty dollar bills, and 15 one hundred dollar bills. The bank had baited four twenty dollar bills, but none were found in the trailer. No guns or bank wrappers were found.
Agent Garay testified that a holster had been found in Maez’ truck, but the holster itself was never offered in evidence. Agent Denniston testified regarding statements Maez made during his interrogation. Maez said he had been driving his truck in the vicinity of the bank (picking up cans). Maez denied the robbery, and claimed that the money found in the trailer was his. Denniston also testified that Maez admitted that the cap was his, and then recanted after being told that it had been found outside the bank.
The sole defense witness was Mrs. Maez. She testified that when her husband left the trailer on the morning of August 14, 1987, he was wearing tennis shoes, green khaki pants, a white shirt, and a yellow hat. Later that day she left. When she returned around 3:00 p.m. Maez was there, wearing the same pants and a t-shirt. Mrs. Maez brought three of her husband’s hats to court, all of which were admitted in evidence.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. Maez filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that Griego’s identification was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable, violating his due process right to a fair trial. The trial court denied the motion and a timely notice of appeal was filed.
II
Analysis
Maez argues that his arrest at his home without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and that evidence subsequently obtained was tainted. We first consider whether Maez’ arrest was lawful. If his arrest was unlawful, we must then decide whether the subsequent consents to search given by Mr. and Mrs. Maez and Maez’ incriminating statements were tainted by the unlawful arrest.
Maez’ Warrantless Arrest
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1375, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), the Supreme Court held that, absent exigent circumstances, police officers may not enter an individual’s home without consent to make a warrantless routine felony arrest even with probable cause.7 In the instant case, police officers, FBI agents and a SWAT team surrounded the Maez’ trailer, and with guns pointed at the home, asked him and his family to come [1450]*1450out. They did and Maez was taken into custody.
The Application of Payton
An arrest or seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen....” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2253 n. 6, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). A show “of official authority such that ‘a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave’ ” indicates that an arrest has occurred. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 502, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1326, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (opinion of Justice Stewart joined by Justice Rehnquist)). “Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even when the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer ... or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877. “[T]he determination of whether an arrest has occurred is not dependent on whether the citizen is formally placed under arrest....” United States v. Hatfield, 815 F.2d 1068, 1071 (6th Cir.1987) (quoting United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 356 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1097, 107 S.Ct. 1318, 94 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987)).
The government argues that Maez “chose to exit his home. He was arrested in a public place.” Brief of Appellee at 14. And the trial court found that Maez “was requested to come out of his home, or out of the trailer in which he was living and he was arrested after he came out into the open.” II R. 164. We cannot agree in light of the undisputed facts. The Albuquerque SWAT team had surrounded the Maez’ trailer with rifles pointed at the home. II R. 39-41; III R. 152. Over the loud speakers the occupants “were asked to remove themselves from the mobile home ...,” as Officer Whitson testified. II R. 39. Mrs. Maez saw the officers with rifles pointed at the house and her son being searched and handcuffed. She told her husband what had happened. “[H]e went to the door and he looked out and he said, [‘]We have to go outside,[’] and he got the baby and we were going outside.” Ill R. 152. Given the presence of some ten officers, the drawn weapons of the SWAT team surrounding the trailer, the use of the loudspeakers, and the frightening circumstances his family faced, a reasonable person would have believed he had to come out of the home and submit to the show of authority. Accordingly, we hold that Maez was arrested while in his home.8
The government strenuously argues that Payton does not apply here because there was no warrantless entry into Maez’ home. It says that the Court drew a firm line at the threshold of the home. Brief of Appellee at 11-14. The contention has considerable force because Payton does make repeated references to entry such as “non-consensual entry into a suspect’s home....” 445 U.S. at 576, 100 S.Ct. at 1375. The Court said the Fourth Amendment “has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Id. at 590, 100 S.Ct. at 1382. And the Court noted that “ ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of [1451]*1451the Fourth Amendment is directed.’ ” Id. at 585, 100 S.Ct. at 1379 (quoting United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2135, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972)).
It is true also that Payton involved cases where police officers, acting with probable cause but without a warrant, entered the defendants’ homes to make arrests. In the case of Payton, the officers used crowbars to break open the door and enter the apartment. Payton, 445 U.S. at 576-77, 100 S.Ct. at 1374-75. In the case of Riddick, the officers knocked on the door of the house where Riddick lived, and when his son opened the door, entered and arrested Riddick. Id. at 578, 100 S.Ct. at 1376. In both cases there was physical entry. The government argues that Payton does not condemn the arrest in this case because the officers did not physically enter the trailer.
We are persuaded, however, by the decisions of the courts which have applied Pay-ton where a physical crossing of the threshold did not occur and their reasoning that the lack of physical entry alone is not dispositive. Those courts have held that Payton is violated where there is such a show of force that a defendant comes out of a home under coercion and submits to being taken in custody. United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 893 and n. 1 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1144, 106 S.Ct. 2255, 90 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986); United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1164 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1061, 105 S.Ct. 2126, 85 L.Ed.2d 490 (1985); Scroggins v. State of Arkansas, 276 Ark. 177, 633 S.W.2d 33, 37 (1982). Cf. United States v. Edmondson, 791 F.2d 1512, 1514-15 (11th Cir.1986) (FBI agents, with weapons drawn, knocked on door, directed occupant to open the door, which he did, and agents arrested him inside). In both Al-Azzawy and Morgan, as in the case now before us, the police had surrounded the defendants’ homes and requested their exit by bullhorn. Both courts reasoned that Payton was violated. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d at 893; Morgan, 743 F.2d at 1166. “In these circumstances, it is the location of the arrested person, and not the arresting agents, that determines whether an arrest occurs within a home.” United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d at 893. We agree and think the important point is that in cases of physical intrusion, or coercion to leave the home, as in this case, the privacy of the home is effectively invaded. Commentators have endorsed such a view of Payton where a defendant’s coming out of his home resulted from coercion. See 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 6.1(e) at 592-94 (2nd ed. 1987).
Payton recognizes that at the “very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” 445 U.S. at 589-590, 100 S.Ct. at 1381-1382 (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)). While “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed” the Court has “refused to lock the Fourth Amendment into instances of actual physical trespass.” United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2135, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). Here the governmental intrusion, without consent and without a warrant, was in the form of extreme coercion which effected the arrest of Maez while he was in his home. We hold that the finding of the trial judge to the contrary is clearly erroneous and that, given the undisputed circumstances here, there was a violation of Maez’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Exigent Circumstances
In addition to its argument — which we have rejected — that there was no arrest of Maez in the home, the government says that both probable cause for the arrest and exigent circumstances existed so that there was in any event no violation of Payton. Brief of Appellee at 13, 15. Emergency conditions may make a warrantless search or arrest constitutional where probable cause exists, see Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2097-98, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), and here Maez does not dispute the existence of such prob[1452]*1452able cause. Moreover, Payton recognized that if exigent circumstances exist, the constitutional bar against a suspect’s arrest in his home without a warrant does not apply. 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. at 1382. Here, however, Maez contends there was no assertion of exigency made in the trial court by the government’s law enforcement witnesses or its counsel. Appellant Maez’ Reply Brief at 12.9 We agree and reject the government’s argument of exigent circumstances made for the first time on appeal.
We cannot accept the government’s belated assertion of the exigent circumstances claim for basic reasons. Where police seek to enter a home without a warrant the state bears the burden of proving that sufficient exigency exists. United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268, 1271 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)). That burden is particularly heavy where the police seek to enter a suspect’s home or the home of a third person because warrantless seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable. Aquino, 836 F.2d at 1271 (quoting Payton, 445 U.S. at 586, 100 S.Ct. at 1380). It is important that the facts on exigent circumstances be developed and that findings be made on them. E.g., United States v. Cuaron, 700 F.2d at 586-91.
In the Payton opinion itself, the Supreme Court noted that while it was arguable that the warrantless arrest of Payton might have been justified by exigent circumstances, none of the lower courts had relied on any such justification and accordingly the Court had no occasion to consider such an emergency or dangerous situation. 445 U.S. at 583, 100 S.Ct. at 1378. In Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981), the government argued for the first time on appeal that the record did not clearly show that the petitioner, who was arrested in a third party’s house, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home. The Court declined to grant the government’s request for a remand for factual findings on the issue:
... [T]he Government was initially entitled to defend against petitioner’s charge of an unlawful search by asserting that petitioner lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched home, or that he consented to the search, or that exigent circumstances justified the entry. The Government, however, may lose its right to raise factual issues of this sort before this Court when it has made contrary assertions in the courts below, when it has acquiesced in contrary findings by those courts, or when it has failed to raise such questions in a timely fashion during the litigation.
We conclude that this is such a case. The Magistrate’s report on petitioner’s suppression motion, which was adopted by the District Court, characterized the issue as whether an arrest warrant was sufficient to justify the search of ‘the home of a third person’ for the subject of the warrant. App. 12. The Government never sought to correct this characterization on appeal, and instead ac[1453]*1453quiesced in the District Court’s view of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim.
Id. at 209, 101 S.Ct. at 1646 (emphasis added). Here, the government concedes in its brief that it did not argue the issue below. Brief of Appellee, 15-16. In fact, the defendant specifically argued below that exigent circumstances did not exist and the government did not dispute the argument.10 Hence the district court had no reason to consider the issue.
For these reasons, we must reject the government’s argument that its claim of exigent circumstances be taken up for the first time on this appeal.
The Taint Caused by the Payton Violation
Having determined that Maez' warrant-less arrest violated Payton and the Fourth Amendment, we must now go on to consider whether the illegal arrest tainted the consents to search subsequently given by him and his wife and his custodial statements, or whether any taint was sufficiently removed and attenuated by intervening circumstances.
Mrs. Maez’ Consent to Search
We first consider whether the consent to search given by Mrs. Maez to the FBI was voluntary in fact so as to remove the taint of Maez’ unlawful arrest. A consent to search which is preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation is valid only if it is voluntary in fact. United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1520-21 (10th Cir.1988); United States v. Carson, 793 F.2d 1141, 1151 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 315, 93 L.Ed.2d 289 (1986)). If the consent is not sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest, it must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1520 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 601, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2260, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)).
Without citation to authority, the government initially argues that because Mrs. Maez was not arrested,11 her consent to search the trailer cannot be tainted by her husband’s prior illegal arrest. We disagree and think the issue, as stated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), is whether “granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” This conclusion is mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978). See also United States v. Howard, 828 F.2d 552, 556 (9th Cir.1987).
In Ceccolini, the defendant (a businessman suspected of gambling) moved to suppress damaging statements of an employee, resulting from an unlawful search of his business premises. Id. at 269-72, 98 S.Ct. at 1056-58. The employee was not arrested. The Court rejected the government’s argument that “the testimony of a live witness should not be excluded at trial no matter how close and proximate the connection between it and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 274-75, 98 S.Ct. at 1059-60. While the primary issue before the Court was whether a categorical distinction should be drawn between physical and verbal evidence found as the result of an unlawful search, the Court specifically noted that the witness whose testimony was at issue was not a [1454]*1454defendant. Id. at 275, 277, 98 S.Ct. at 1059, 1060-61. The Court nevertheless concluded that “ ‘verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case is no less the “fruit” of the official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.’ ” Id. at 275, 98 S.Ct. at 1059 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 485, 83 S.Ct. at 416). Thus, the defendant could raise the taint issue as to the statements made by his employee. And while the witness in Ceccolini gave statements, as opposed to a consent to search, the same analysis is required here. The question is whether the statements of the witness (or in our case the consent) have “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” Ceccolini, 435 U.S. at 274, 98 S.Ct. at 1059 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487, 491, 83 S.Ct. at 417, 419).
Whether a consent to search preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation is sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest depends upon whether it is voluntary in fact, which in turn depends upon the totality of circumstances surrounding the consent. See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1520 (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2058-59, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) and Carson, 793 F.2d at 1149). In applying the Schneckloth v. Bustamonte voluntariness test to consents to search obtained subsequent to Fourth Amendment violations, this court has considered the three factors articulated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), which apply to confessions. Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1520-1521. These factors include “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct....” Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04, 95 S.Ct. at 2261-62 (citation omitted). Weighing these factors the court must decide the ultimate question whether the consent was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest. See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1520. See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1326, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Carson, 793 F.2d at 1152; United States v. Recalde, 761 F.2d 1448, 1458 (10th Cir.1985).
As noted, the district judge found that Mrs. Maez’ consent was voluntarily and willingly given, although he expressed reluctance in making this finding.12 The judge had also held there was no illegal arrest of Mr. Maez and thus had no reason to consider whether Mrs. Maez’ consent was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of her husband’s unlawful arrest.
When consent is obtained after an illegal arrest there must be a break in the causal connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 217-19, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2259-60, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Here the violation of Payton and the undisputed train of events that followed compel us to hold that Mrs. Maez’ consent was tainted and invalid.13 First, [1455]*1455the proximity of the arrest and Mrs. Maez’ consents clearly indicate that taint of the Payton violation was not purged. The FBI consent form was signed by Mrs. Maez at approximately 7:15 p.m., just after she had been summoned from the trailer by the bullhorn. And when she signed the form she was still in the trailer park. Ill R. 64-66.
Second, the intervening circumstances indicate no purging of the primary taint of her husband’s illegal arrest. After leaving the trailer, Mrs. Maez was immediately asked by Albuquerque police officer Whit-son to sign the police department’s consent to search form. II R. 39. She was then approached by FBI agent Gyman who explained that the FBI wanted to search for money, weapons, and clothing, and the second consent form was signed. Ill R. 65-66. There were no intervening circumstances of any significance to purge the taint of the unlawful warrantless arrest of Maez.
With respect to the purpose and flagrancy of the violation, the last Brown factor, it cannot be said that the officers purposefully violated Payton in the sense that they were aware of the impropriety of their actions, as was the case in Brown. See Brown, 422 U.S. at 605, 95 S.Ct. at 2262. The manner of the arrest, however, created a frightening scene for the Maez family as did Brown’s arrest.14 Id. Agent Marrero, who was present when Mrs. Maez signed the FBI consent form, testified that she was crying and upset when she signed the form. She said that she signed the consent forms only because she had to. Before leaving the trailer Mrs. Maez had seen her fifteen year old son walking across the street with his hands in the air, and she watched as he was handcuffed. She was holding her two month old baby from the time she left the trailer throughout the signing of all three consent forms. II R. 41, 56-57. The undisputed facts clearly indicate that the taint of Maez’ arrest had not been purged when Mrs. Maez signed the FBI consent to search form and the police department consent.15
[1456]*1456The government argues that Mrs. Maez was advised of her right to refuse consent, both orally and on the consent forms themselves. While this fact is indeed probative it is not dispositive of the voluntariness issue. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 249, 93 S.Ct. at 2047-48, 2059; Recalde, 761 F.2d at 1458-59. We note that Mrs. Maez testified that she was told by the officers that if she refused consent they could simply get a warrant while she waited outside. Ill R. 156. This tends to undermine any salutary effect that advice of the right to refuse consent might have had. United States v. Ocheltree, 622 F.2d 992, 993-94 (9th Cir.1980).
We hold that Maez’ illegal arrest tainted the subsequent consents to search the trailer given by Mrs. Maez and that her consents were not “ ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint’ [of the illegal arrest].” Brown, 422 U.S. at 602, 95 S.Ct. at 2261 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 486, 83 S.Ct. at 416). The evidence seized pursuant to the FBI consent to search form, including the paper bag containing $5,844, the box of ammunition, two red bandannas, and the dark blue knit cap should have been suppressed, along with various photographs of the seized evidence.16
Maez’ Consent to Search
After exiting the trailer Maez was taken into custody by the Albuquerque police department. He was then turned over to the FBI and given Miranda warnings. He was taken to an interview room at the Albuquerque office of the FBI. He signed a waiver of rights form at 8:00 p.m., approximately 45 minutes after he had been taken into custody. Ill R. 110-111. He was then interrogated. During the interrogation he signed a consent to search form, authorizing a search of his pickup truck. Ill R. 112-115. Doc. 11, Exh. B. Officer Guyman searched the truck and found a holster. The district judge found that Maez, after being advised of his Miranda rights, “willingly and knowingly gave permission to search the Ford pickup....” Ill R. 165. As was true with respect to Mrs. Maez’ consent, the district judge did not discuss the effect of the prior illegal arrest, having held that no violation or unlawful arrest occurred.
To determine whether Maez’ consent to search the truck was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of his illegal arrest we again consider the three factors enunciated in Brown. The proximity of Maez’ arrest and his subsequent consent given 45 minutes later does not indicate that the taint of the Payton violation was purged. In Brown v. Illinois, Brown’s initial statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours. Brown, 422 U.S. at 604, 95 S.Ct. at 2262. The Court there held that Brown’s statement, like James Wah Toy’s statement in Wong Sun, was the fruit of the poisonous tree. Id. 422 U.S. at 604-05, 95 S.Ct. at 2262-63. See also Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 486-87, 83 S.Ct. at 416-17. From the time Maez was taken to the FBI interview room he was in the custody of at least three officers, see III R. 109, and was initially in the presence of ten. See Patino, 830 F.2d at 1418 (taint not purged where defendant continually in the company of one officer). His removal to the interview room does not indicate a break in the causal connection between his arrest and the subsequent consent. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 1647, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985); Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 212-13, 99 S.Ct. at 2256-57.
[1457]*1457With respect to the second Brown factor, the effect of any intervening circumstances, the government does not point to and we do not find in the record any circumstances which would tend to dissipate the taint.17 With respect to the last factor, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct, the manner of the arrest was such that it would cause surprise, fright and confusion. See Brown, 422 U.S. at 605, 95 S.Ct. at 2262. Maez testified that he felt dizzy during his interrogation; he vomitted approximately three quarters of the way through the interview, as one of the FBI agents testified. Ill R. 135. Considering all three Brown factors, we hold that Maez’ consent to search the truck was not sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint. See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1520.
The government notes that the consent form was signed after Maez had been advised of his Miranda rights, which is probative. But as the Supreme Court noted, “[i]f Miranda warnings, by themselves, were held to attenuate the taint of an unconstitutional arrest, regardless of how wanton and purposeful the Fourth Amendment violation, the effect of the exclusionary rule would be substantially diluted.” Brown, 422 U.S. at 602-03, 95 S.Ct. at 2261. Miranda warnings do not per se break the causal connection between an illegal arrest and evidence subsequently obtained. See Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 216-17, 99 S.Ct. at 2258-59.
We hold that in these circumstances, notwithstanding the Miranda warnings, Maez’ consent was tainted by his prior illegal arrest and the testimony regarding the holster should have been suppressed.
III
Maez’ Custodial Statements
During his interrogation Maez explained where he had been and what he had been doing on the day of the robbery. He said that he had been in possession of his pickup throughout the day and had been in the area of the bank. He admitted ownership of a cap shown to him during the interrogation by Agent Denniston. When told that the cap had been found outside the doors of the bank which had been robbed, Maez then denied ownership of the cap. Officer Denniston testified about those statements at trial and the cap was admitted. IV R. 153-160.
The exculpatory and incriminating statements made by Maez during his interrogation are subject to the same analysis as the consent to search the truck. See Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690-94, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667-69, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982); Brown, 422 U.S. at 593-95, 95 S.Ct. at 2256-58; Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 486-87, 83 S.Ct. at 416-17 (exculpatory and incriminating statements entitled to the protection of the exclusionary rule). Applying the same Brown analysis, which we made earlier, we hold that the statements should have been suppressed.18
IV
The judgment is accordingly REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.