agree. Griffen, J., concurs. Stroud, C.J., dissents. Wendell L. GRIFFEN, Judge, concurring. I agree that Trooper Ramsey violated appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights by detaining them after he determined that the Texas registration of Dodd’s van was valid. However, I write separately to state in the clearest terms that assertion of one’s constitutional rights, even if asserted with rudeness, does not automatically provide a police officer with reasonable suspicion to conduct a war-rantless search. The United States Supreme Court has held that a suspect’s mere assertion of constitutional rights cannot constitute the sole basis for establishing probable cause to conduct a search. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). See also United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1162 (1996); Snow v.
holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent