Rodriquez v. State
In Rodriquez v. State, 262 Ark. 659, 559 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Ark. 1978), the defendant was pulled over and consented to the search of his trunk by armed officers. It was disputed as to whether the defendant actually consented to the search and he claimed that after asking the officer if he had a search warrant, the officer patted his gun and said it was the only search warrant he needed. Id. The court concluded that it could not sustain a finding that the consent was voluntary. Id.
At the time he the defendant was apparently surrounded by armed police officers. We pointed out . . . that the State has the burden of proving that consent was freely and voluntarily given. "This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority." We went on to say that consent must be proved by clear and positive testimony. It must also be shown there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied. Here the proof of consent cannot be said to be clear and positive, nor can it fairly be said that there was no implied coercion. Id.