context: At least one Texas court of appeals has applied Randolph in the context of a vehicle search. The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the driver's consent was valid based on her care, custody, and control of the vehicle.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 526 F.3d 1339, 1339
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent."
citation_a.sentence: See Houston, 286 S.W.3d at 609 (“Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent.”); see also Harris, 526 F.3d at 1339 (“[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 286 S.W.3d 609, 609
citation_b.parenthetical: "Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent."
citation_b.sentence: See Houston, 286 S.W.3d at 609 (“Voluntary consent given by a third party is not valid as to the defendant if the defendant is also present and expressly refuses to consent.”); see also Harris, 526 F.3d at 1339 (“[T]he extension of the prohibition on warrantless searches applies only to defendants who are present and actually express a refusal to consent.”).