In Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), the petitioner argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court had erred in denying his request for an Article 38.23 jury instruction regarding the legality of the search of his van, in which cocaine was found. Garza, 126 S.W.3d at 85. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. While acknowledging that "a fact issue about whether evidence was illegally obtained may be raised 'from any source, and the evidence may be strong, weak, contradicted, unimpeached, or unbelievable,'" -- as the majority in this case observes--the court nonetheless specifically noted "that an Article 38.23 instruction must be included in the jury charge only if there is a factual dispute about how the evidence was obtained." Id. The Garza court held that since the defendant's testimony did not "'differ significantly' from that of the officers" as to "how the officers discovered the drugs and the paraphernalia," suggestions by the defendant's counsel that the officers were on a fishing expedition did not "rise to the level of creating a fact issue." Id. at 86. It stated, "That appellant 'disagrees with the conclusion that probable cause was shown as a matter of law" is not the same as appellant controverting the facts. . . . The question of whether the search was legal is a question of law, as none of the circumstances surrounding the search were controverted by appellant." Id.