Mary Elizabeth Harrison, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, holding that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mary Elizabeth Harrison voluntarily consented to a urine specimen, and affirmed that the investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The majority emphasized deference to the trial judge's credibility determinations and clarified the burden on the State under Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Meyers dissented, arguing that the lack of statutory warnings and the coercive circumstances rendered Harrison's consent involuntary. The dissent would have upheld the Court of Appeals' finding of involuntary consent.