with the contention of the majority that Wyche does not involve any police “promises.” See majority op. at 29 n. 6 ("However, in Thomas, as here, we ultimately found that the defendant's confession was voluntary because there was no evidence of threats, promises, or other improper influences.” (emphasis supplied)). The investigator’s accusation of an in-custody suspect with a completely fabricated felony offense along with the implied or perhaps even explicit promise of the opportunity for exoneration of a crime that the suspect knew he did not commit is a "promise” under my reading of the state and federal confession cases. Judge Ervin’s dissent below and Justice Anstead’s dissent here express similar views. 30 . United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Simpson, 259 Fed.Appx. 164,
holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest holding that reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest  will not do