With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 412 U.S. at 219-23, 93 S.Ct. 2041. The validity of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 40, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). The consent must “not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force.” Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 228, 93 S.Ct. 2041; see also Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (“The consent must be shown to be positive and unequivocal, and there must not be any duress or coercion.”). By the same token, consent is not established by “showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.” Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-49, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) (<HOLDING>). In determining the meaning of a voluntary

A: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
B: holding where officer falsely represented he had a valid search warrant consent not voluntary
C: holding that a consent to search that is given only after an official falsely asserts possession of a search warrant is unconstitutional
D: holding threat to obtain a search warrant if individual does not consent to a search is just one factor in deciding whether the totality of the circumstances supports a voluntary consent finding
B.