its authority to deny probation. The choice belongs to the defendant. Accordingly, we see no reason to deny a defendant the right to waive his Fourth Amendment rights in order to secure the benefits of probation. As such, the Appellant’s argument of invalid consent is without merit. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court revoking the Appellant’s probation is affirmed. 1 . Our supreme court has held that while "the Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not proscribe voluntary cooperation.” State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174, 184 (Tenn.2005) (citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); Schneckioth v. Bus-tamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 243, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)) (<HOLDING>). The court further concluded that the same is
holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that there is nothing constitutionally suspect in a person  voluntarily allowing a search holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search and the patdown of his person did not exceed the scope of his consent which included a search of the groin area holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property