Robert Gillette appeals his conviction for conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846, contending that the trial court^[2] should[*1033] have suppressed a methamphetamine lab that police seized from the bed of his pickup truck and Mr. Gillette’s subsequent statements regarding his knowledge of the lab. We affirm.

I.

Mr. Gillette was charged with conspiracy as a result of an investigation that occurred at the home of Jeffrey Croft. Acting upon an anonymous tip of drug activity at Mr. Croft’s home, Deputy Craig Lambert and Detective Dan Kriteman went to the Croft home to investigate. Upon arrival, the officers noted several vehicles parked outside the Croft home, including Mr. Gillette’s F-150 pickup. The officers then informed Mr. Croft of the purpose of their visit, and asked everyone in the house to step outside. In all, there were approximately seven adults and two children in the house at the time, including Mr. Gillette and his -wife. After hearing noises coming from the house, Deputy Lambert asked Mr. Croft for permission to enter the house. Mr. Croft agreed, and while Deputy Lambert was inside the house, he saw acetone and gas masks, items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Detective Kriteman, meanwhile, prepared a form that requested permission from Mr. and Mrs. Croft to search the residence, several outbuildings, some junked cars, and the F-150 pickup. Mr. and Mrs. Croft signed the form and did not disclaim ownership of the pickup. Detective Kriteman testified during the suppression hearing that he believed that the truck belonged to the Crofts, but he also testified that his plan was to ascertain the ownership of each vehicle on the premises before searching that vehicle. While Detective Kriteman was searching the house, however, Deputy Darrell Smithson, in response to a call for backup, arrived on the scene and began to search the vehicles. During his search, Deputy Smithson discovered components of a methamphetamine lab inside trash bags in the bed of Mr. Gillette’s truck. This evidence, as well as Mr. Gillette’s admission to Deputy Lambert that he knew that the lab was in his truck, served as the primary proof of his involvement in the conspiracy.

II.

Mr. Gillette maintains that the methamphetamine lab should have been suppressed because Deputy Smithson did not have a valid basis for his search of the pickup. Following a hearing, a magistrate refused to suppress the evidence, finding that Deputy Smithson relied on the third-party consent given by the Crofts; the trial court accepted the magistrate’s recommendation. While the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error, we review de novo the ultimate question of whether a fourth amendment violation has occurred. See United States v. Clayton, 210 F.3d 841, 845 (8th Cir.2000).

Had Detective Kriteman himself searched Mr. Gillette’s pickup, we think that the search would have clearly been valid. Although the Crofts did not have actual authority to consent to a search of the pickup, the search would have been valid if a reasonable officer would have been justified in believing that the Crofts had authority to consent to the search. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 186, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990); see also United States v. Czech, 105 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1997). We think that Detective Kriteman would have been justified in believing that the Crofts had such authority, because Mr. Gillette’s pickup was parked next to the farmhouse, closer to the house than any other vehicle, and the Crofts did not deny ownership of the pickup when it was listed on the consent form. Under these circumstances, we[*1034] think a belief that the Crofts owned the pickup would have been reasonable, thus validating a search by Detective Kriteman.

The search that actually occurred in this case, however, was conducted not by Detective Kriteman but by Deputy Smithson. There is no evidence that Deputy Smithson was informed of the consent that the Crofts gave; the inference from the record, in fact, is that Deputy Smithson simply arrived on the scene and immediately began to search vehicles. A question before us, therefore, is whether we may impute Detective Kriteman’s knowledge of the consent form to Deputy Smithson: If we may, Deputy Smithson would be treated as having the same knowledge as Detective Kriteman, thus validating his search for the reasons that we explained earlier.

Where officers work together on an investigation, we have used the so-called “collective knowledge” theory, United States v. Gonzales, 220 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir.2000), to impute the knowledge of one officer to other officers to uphold an otherwise invalid search or seizure. Under this rationale, the validity of a search “may be based on the collective knowledge of all of the law enforcement officers involved in an investigation if ... some degree of communication exists between them,” id. See also United States v. Morales, 238 F.3d 952, 953 (8th Cir.2001), and United States v. Twiss, 127 F.3d 771, 774 (8th Cir.1997). The requirement that there be a degree of communication serves to distinguish between officers functioning as a “search team,” United States v. O’Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1419 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2857, 101 L.Ed.2d 893 (1988), 488 U.S. 1011, 109 S.Ct. 799, 102 L.Ed.2d 790 (1989), and officers acting as independent actors who merely happen to be investigating the same subject.

In this case, since Deputy Smithson was called to the scene to assist in an investigation that was ongoing, we believe that there was the requisite degree of communication between him and the officers on the scene to make him a member of their team and thus to impute to him the knowledge that the team had acquired. Because Deputy Smithson was not an independent actor, he was privy to the consent to search the pickup truck that Mr. Croft gave to Deputy Kriteman and the fruits of that search were therefore legally acquired. The district court thus correctly denied Mr. Gillette’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine lab.

III.

Because the lab was legally seized, Mr. Gillette’s argument that his admission that he owned the lab was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), must fail. Mr. Gillette was given his Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before he made his admission, moreover, and there is no showing that his statement was in any way involuntary, so there is no legal basis upon which the contents of the statement may be suppressed. The trial court therefore correctly denied Mr. Gillette’s motion to suppress his admission.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.