With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent
B: 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
C: holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home
D: holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search
D.