In Cortez v. State, 788 S.W.2d 89, 92-94 (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.), this court found that the arrest of appellant was illegal, because the police had no probable cause to stop appellant's car. Cortez, 788 S.W.2d at 93. This court concluded that Cortez's consent to search his townhouse was invalid because the purpose underlying the illegal arrest was to procure the consent to search. Id. In that case, the police had received information that Cortez was selling large amounts of cocaine out of his townhouse. Id. at 91. The police watched the house for a few days, but did not see any transactions actually transpire. Id. They observed appellant and another man drive away from the townhouse. Id. The police followed and stopped appellant because they believed he had narcotics in the car and was selling dope out of the townhouse. Id. The police testified the whole idea in stopping appellant was to get his consent to search the townhouse. Thus, this court found the consent to search was "tainted" by the illegal arrest. Id at 94.