Upon the evidence presented to the Crittenden County Circuit Court jury, it rendered a guilty verdict. The trial court sentenced appellant to the forty-year prison term that he now appeals. Appellant's first argument is that his consent was not freely and voluntarily given for the search of his vehicle. All searches without a valid warrant are unreasonable, unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant. 60 Ark. App.
Consent is a justification for a warrantless search.
When the State claims that a search is justified by consent, it has the burden of proving that the consent was freely and voluntarily given and that there was no actual or implied duress or coercion. Additionally, although we recognize that in determining voluntariness the trial court may take into consideration whether a defendant knew he had the right to refuse consent, it is not a conclusive factor. In fact, our supreme court has specifically noted that knowledge of the right to refuse consent to search is not a requirement to prove the voluntariness of the consent. When reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate courts make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. In making this determination, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.