In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00191-CR 

TYREE JAMAR LOVE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 82nd District Court 

Robertson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 17-07-20498-CR, Honorable Robert Miller Stem, Presiding 

 

January 25, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

 

Appellant, Tyree Jamar Love, appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a felon.1 His sole issue on appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of his motion 

to suppress evidence. The evidence in question was the firearm found by a DPS trooper 

(Holley) within the console of appellant’s vehicle. The trooper initially stopped appellant 

based upon a BOLO dispatch. Issued by the Waco Police Department, the BOLO

 

1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals, we are obligated to apply 

its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this Court.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

informed the trooper to “be on the lookout” for “a gold passenger car involved in a – at 

the time it was reported, it was an aggravated kidnapping of children.” Holley testified 

that the dispatch initially included “no other information, no suspect information,” save “an 

address in Bryan, Texas.” A subsequent dispatch included reference to appellant’s name 

and a firearm. Holley encountered the “gold vehicle” driving on Highway 6 between Waco 

and Bryan, Texas, around 10:30 p.m., made the stop, asked questions of appellant, found 

appellant allegedly uncooperative, removed appellant from the car, and escorted him to 

the back of the vehicle. Other troopers, a sheriff’s deputy, and a local police officer had 

arrived by then. After about forty minutes standing on the side of the road at night and 

law enforcement official having twice entered appellant’s vehicle, Holley asked for 

consent to search it. The trial court found that appellant voluntarily gave the trooper such 

consent. That search resulted in the discovery of the handgun. We affirm.

Before the search during which the firearm was discovered, the following exchange 

(captured on a video/audio recording) occurred between appellant and Holley.

Officer Holley: Mind if we look?

Appellant: I thought you just looked.

Unidentified Officer: Checking on the kids.

Officer Holley: (Inaudible) check on the kids (inaudible).

Appellant: I thought he did a search.

Officer Holley: Nah, he was just checking on the kids.

Appellant: Can we wait on Waco P.D.? I mean, I am trying to understand 

here.

Officer Holley: Yeah, I’m just—look—let me look in the car real quick. We’ll 

be good. Waco will be good. You’ll be on your way. You good with that?
3

Appellant: I mean, I don’t really got no problem with that. I’m trying to see 

what it is (inaudible).

Officer Holley: Yeah, I’m trying to see too, man. I’ll let you know what Waco 

tells me.

The same recording also depicted appellant, at the time, standing un-handcuffed 

against the trunk of his vehicle with three law enforcement officers standing near him. 

None had their weapons drawn. Nor can they be heard making threats or talking in raised 

voices. Moments earlier, appellant can be seen intermittently operating his cell phone 

and standing with his arms crossed while casually answering questions about what he 

did, how the children in the car were, and when their school year ended. 

Appellant challenges the search which yielded the firearm; he does not appear to 

contest the legality of the initial traffic stop. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments, a search conducted without a warrant based on probable cause is “per se 

unreasonable . . . subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated 

exceptions.” Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). One of 

those few exceptions is a search conducted pursuant to the person’s voluntary consent. 

Id. The validity of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined from all the 

circumstances. Id.

A person’s consent to search can be communicated to law enforcement in a variety 

of ways, including by words, action, or circumstantial evidence showing implied consent. 

“But the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not be coerced, by 

explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force.” Id. at 458–59. Furthermore,

the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was freely and 
4

voluntarily given. See Johnson v. State, 226 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

2

In determining that issue, we assess the totality of the circumstances from the point of 

view of an objectively reasonable person. Tucker v. State, 369 S.W.3d 179, 185 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2012). And a myriad of indicia have been mentioned in precedent to guide 

our decision. They include such things as the length of the detention, the duration of the 

questioning, the repetitiveness of the questions, the appellant’s awareness of his right to 

deny consent, and the psychological impact the questioning and circumstances had on 

the appellant. Id. 

We have also been told that, because issues of consent are necessarily fact 

intensive, a trial court’s finding of voluntariness must be accepted on appeal unless it is 

clearly erroneous. Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 460. That is to say, “the party that prevailed 

in the trial court is afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. 

Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). 

It has become a cliché that pictures paint a thousand words; they do here. The 

video at bar supplies what cold words in a hearing transcript omit. It takes little 

imagination to interpret Holley’s query about “mind if we look” as a request to search the 

car. Appellant’s responses to same evince a person not willing to simply kowtow to 

authority but, rather, someone willing to question that authority. Indeed, upon being 

asked to consent, he seemed to challenge Holley by asking him to explain what occurred 

when the officers entered the car earlier and why those were not searches and, in 

 

2 The federal constitution requires the State to prove the validity of the consent by a preponderance 

of the evidence; the Texas Constitution requires the State to show by clear and convincing evidence that 

the consent was valid. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc) (citing 

Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).
5

themselves, enough. Earlier, upon being stopped and directed to exit the car, appellant 

can be heard asking why he was stopped and telling the officers that he had a “right” to 

know that information. He persisted in his position, accused the officers of being 

aggressive as they continued to ask him to exit, and told them that they did not need to 

“handle” him as they did in grasping his arm and moving him to the rear of the vehicle.

No doubt tensions initially ran high given that one officer drew his sidearm when 

appellant was being removed from the car as Holley seemed to grasp appellant’s arm. 

Holley also can be heard saying something like appellant was about to see “aggressive”

immediately before appellant was removed. Yet, minutes passed and dispositions cooled

after appellant was made to stand at the rear of the vehicle. Discussion ensued between 

appellant and the officers coupled with explanations from Holley about what was 

happening and why. Officers also milled back and forth, on and off the video screen. 

Appellant can even be seen talking on his cell phone and otherwise operating the device. 

About thirty-two minutes after the stop and after Holley had attempted to clarify 

matters with the Waco police, the trooper asked his question about appellant caring 

whether they looked in the car. Upon hearing appellant’s response, Holley began his 

search. Once the search began, appellant did not object by word or conduct; he simply 

stood with his arms crossed for the most part. 

The trial court had before it evidence from which it could conclude that 1) a 

reasonable officer in Holley’s position could interpret the statement “I mean, I don’t really 

got no problem with that” as consent to search the vehicle and 2) the consent was 

voluntary. See Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 463 (holding that the circumstances involved 

there permitted the trial court to decide that appellant’s ambiguous answer of “I guess” to 
6

the officer’s ambiguous question of “do you mind if I look” supported an objectively 

reasonable person’s deduction that appellant gave consent to search the vehicle). Here,

the evidence can be interpreted as illustrating that appellant had little fear of or felt little 

duress from Holley or the other law enforcement officials. Being required to defer to the 

trial court’s adjudication of the historical facts, per Meekins, we cannot say that the trial 

court erred in deeming appellant to have voluntarily consented to Holley’s search.3 

Disposition of the issue of consent renders it unnecessary to address the other 

issues raised by appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled,

and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

 

3 Counsel for appellant also advanced the position “that the U.S. and Texas Constitutions’

protections against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination require explicit warnings to the 

accused that he or she can deny consent to search when the state asks for that consent,” though he 

candidly admited that “[p]recedent from our highest courts, however, currently indicates otherwise.” We 

appreciate counsel’s position and his arguments in support of the change in law, but, as he acknowledged,

it is not our role, as an intermediate appellate court, to create this new principle of law. Rather, we are 

“bound by the precedent of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and [have] no authority to disregard or 

overrule the precedent” as set by that court. Sierra v. State, 157 S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2004), aff’d, 218 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).