OPINION
VANCE, Justice.
A jury convicted Wilfredy Rene Vicioso of burglary of a habitation and sentenced him to life in prison after finding that the allegations of two previous felony convictions were true as alleged in the enhancement paragraph of the indictment. In four points of error, Vicioso claims that:
1. The trial court erred in overruling Vicioso’s motion to suppress his written confession as a fruit of an illegal arrest, resulting in the violation of Vicioso’s rights under both federal and state constitutions.
2. The trial court erred in overruling Vicioso’s motion to suppress his written confession as a fruit of an illegal arrest, adversely affecting his substantial rights.
3. During the punishment phase, the trial court erred in overruling Vicio-so’s motion for mistrial and/or in failing to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous crime.
4. The trial court erred in overruling Vicioso’s objection to the court’s charge on guilt/innocence for its failure to instruct the jury to disregard his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest.
We will reverse the judgment.
FACTS
Vicioso filed a motion to suppress a written confession he gave an officer of the Hamilton County Sheriffs Department (“Department”), claiming it was the “fruit” of an arrest made without probable cause.
At the suppression hearing, the State called one witness: Jim Buster of the Department. Buster testified that the Department was investigating several house burglaries in the county, including the “Diaz burglary,” and that there were several suspects, including Vicioso and his girlfriend, Tammy Gomez. Both had prior convictions for burglary. Buster said that during the course of the investigation, the Department learned Gomez had pawned a stolen drill, and that investigators had interrogated Gomez and Vicioso about the drill. Apparently, neither was arrested. Later, the Department learned of a pawn ticket from Black’s Pawn Shop in Gran-bury which might have been related to items stolen in the “Diaz burglary.” The ticket, issued on the same day that the burglary occurred, was in Gomez’s name. So, Buster testified, investigators began to again look for Gomez and Vicioso for questioning. We find it significant that had Buster felt at that point that probable cause existed to arrest Vicioso based on the information the Department had, he would undoubtedly have obtained an arrest warrant. That he did not demonstrates his belief that probable cause to arrest Vicioso was lacking.
Around 2:00 or 2:15 p.m., while Buster was getting a Diet Coke in Hico, he and Officer Howard Westmoreland saw Gomez and Vicioso go by in a van driven by Gomez, and they began to follow. Buster radioed ahead so that Officer Casey Heath could stop the vehicle. Buster said that at the scene of the stop, he took Gomez out of the vehicle and asked for permission to search it, which she gave. The search revealed nothing. The fact that Buster asked for permission to search the van shows he did not believe he had probable cause to arrest Gomez.1 The of[107]*107ficers questioned Gomez but obtained no incriminating information. Nevertheless, the officers handcuffed Vicioso and Gomez, placed them in separate squad cars, and took them to the Sheriffs Department where they were held separately. Vicioso was strip-searched and body-cavity searched by Heath and placed in a cell.
Buster said he “focus[ed] on Mrs. Gomez” by “giving her her rights” and interrogating her. Gomez confessed to Buster that she and Vicioso had been involved in at least three burglaries in Hamilton County. She also disclosed the location of a gun hidden in her vehicle, which was retrieved. About two hours after arriving at the Sheriffs Department, she signed a written confession. Buster testified that Gomez and some officers then visited the locations of the burglaries she described.
Buster said that after he took a written statement from Gomez, he went to the cell in which Vicioso was being held and told him that Gomez had confessed to the burglaries and that the gun had been recovered. He told Vicioso it was “up to him if he wanted to give a statement or not. We had the gun, had her statement impheating him in the burglary .... I told him if he didn’t make a statement it didn’t make me any difference because we could file felon with a gun on him and [we] had the burglary.”2 After a brief absence, Buster was called back by Vicioso who asked to speak to Gomez, which was allowed briefly, and then Buster “read him his rights.” Buster said, “We didn’t talk about the burglary until after he was Mirandized.” Vicioso then gave a written statement confessing to burglaries; this was about three hours after arriving at the Department. At the hearing, Buster identified the written statement he took from Vicioso.3
On cross-examination, Buster said that no traffic citations were issued, although he said the vehicle had crossed the center line of the highway several times while the officers followed it. In response to a question about whether Vicioso and Gomez were at any time “free to go” after the initial stop, Buster testified:
A. We were — asked them to accompany us down there to — for questioning. Q. So did you just say follow me down there?
A. No. No. We put them in the car and we transported them.
[[Image here]]
Q. Are you aware whether or not the Defendant was strip-searched upon arriving at the Sheriffs Department?
A. I believe he was, yes, sir.
Q. Then he was taken and put in a jail cell, was he not?
A. At some — at some point, yes, sir, he was.
Q. Okay. He was put in a jail cell while you were working with Tammy Gomez? A. No, sir, not — not until after she had made a statement that he was involved in a burglary.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay, so — so the basis for having— at that point he was arrested?
A. Yes. Based on her statement I felt I had probable cause to hold him in connection with the burglary.4
[[Image here]]
[108]*108Q. All right. Did yon have a warrant for his arrest?
A. Not at that time, no, sir. I based it on probable cause of her statement. I obtained a warrant as soon as I could the next morning on the 13th.
Buster verified that the vehicle belonged to Gomez, that he did not talk to Vicioso at the location of the initial detention, but concentrated on talking to Gomez, and that Vicioso was not taken before a magistrate before he gave the written statement.
On re-direct examination, the State asked Buster “what did you really know” about Vicioso when he and Gomez were stopped. Buster said he knew that there was the pawn ticket in Gomez’s name, that Gomez and Vicioso lived together and she drove him wherever he went, and that Vicioso had a “criminal history out of Florida.”
Vicioso called Westmoreland to testify. Westmoreland thought that the vehicle had been stopped by Officer Heath for a defective taillight. He said that he did not talk to Vicioso at the scene of the stop, so he did not know what Vicioso was told by the other officers. He said that all the officers drove by the Courthouse in Hamilton on the way to the Sheriffs Department, without stopping. The courthouse is where the Justice of the Peace and the County Judge (who usually act as the magistrates in Hamilton County) are located. He testified that although he did not remember reading Vicioso his Miranda rights, files from the Sheriffs office indicated he read Vicioso his rights about thirty minutes after arrival at the Department. (Vicioso denied this.) On cross-examination, he said that Vicioso and Gomez were being “detained” for questioning.
Vicioso also called Officer Heath, who testified that he stopped the vehicle because of a “defective brake signal.” He said he took charge of Vicioso, handcuffed him, and placed him in his patrol car. He said that Buster and Westmoreland told him to transport Vicioso to the Sheriffs Department “for a pending investigation.” When asked if he would have removed the handcuffs if Vicioso had expressed a desire to get out of the patrol car, Heath said, “At that time, no, sir.... I had orders from a superior office to take him into the — put him into my patrol car.” He said that Vicioso’s hands were behind him and that he was seated in the front seat of the patrol car. They arrived at the Department about 2:30 in the afternoon. The strip-search occurred about ten minutes after they arrived at the Sheriffs Department. Vicioso was moved to a cell around 3:30.
Mike Metcalf, a jailer for the Hamilton County Sheriffs Department, testified that he arrived at the jail at 4:00 p.m. on the day Vicioso was arrested. He said that Vicioso had been there for about an hour, he was in a locked jail cell, his belt had been removed, and he had already been strip-searched.
Then Vicioso took the stand. He testified that Heath was flashing his lights even before turning around to follow the vehicle. He said the officers took Gomez out of the vehicle first, then removed him, handcuffed him, and placed him in Heath’s vehicle. When Vicioso asked Heath whether he was under arrest, Heath said “I don’t know.” Vicioso said he was not asked whether he wanted to go to the Sheriffs Department and was given no choice about it. He said they drove past the Courthouse without stopping to see a magistrate, and that he was strip-searched five or ten minutes after arriving at the Sheriffs Department. He said Buster was “in and out” of the cell, and on one visit, told him that they had found the gun and that “I needed to go ahead and confess. If not, he was going to charge me with the [109]*109gun.” He also said that Buster told him that if he confessed, Buster would “talk to the D.A., you know, that I complied and worked with him, the most I would get would be ten to fifteen.” Vicioso denied ever being “Mirandized.”
On cross-examination, Vicioso acknowledged that he had signed the written statement, but said that he would not have done so had he known he could remain silent and could have a lawyer appointed.
After a recess but before the motion was argued, the prosecutor told the court that Buster had informed counsel that his earlier testimony was incorrect as to the timing of the trip made by him and Gomez to the scene of the crimes she described. Counsel said that Buster told him that the trip occurred before Gomez gave her written statement, rather than afterwards.
The evidence at trial did not differ in any material aspects from the testimony at the suppression hearing.5
THE LEGAL STANDARD
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under the standard set forth in Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). In Guzman, the Court of Criminal Appeals articulated the standard of review to be used when deciding mixed questions of law and fact such as “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” as follows:
[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts ... should afford almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record supports especially when the trial court’s fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor [citation omitted]. The appellate courts ... should afford the same amount of deference to trial court rulings on “application of law to fact questions,” also known as “mixed questions of law and fact,” if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demean- or. The appellate courts may review de novo “mixed questions of law and fact” not falling within this category.
Id. at 88-89. When the facts are undisputed and we are presented with a pure question of law, de novo review is proper. Oles v. State, 965 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998), aff'd, 993 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thus, when the issue to be determined on appeal is whether an officer had probable cause to seize a suspect, “the trial judge is not in an appreciably better position than the reviewing court to make that determination.” Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 87. Therefore, although due weight should be given to the inferences drawn by trial judges and law enforcement officers, determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)).
LEGALITY OF THE ARREST
Vicioso argues that his arrest was in violation of, among others, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Chapter Fourteen of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. U.S. Const, amend. IV; Tex. Code Crim.Proc. Ann. arts. 14.01-14.06 (Vernon 1977 and Supp.2001). He says that he was “arrested” when officers handcuffed him during the road stop and then transported him to the Sheriffs Department. We agree. An “arrest” occurs “when a person’s liberty of [110]*110movement is successfully restricted or restrained, whether this is achieved by an officer’s physical force or the suspect’s submission to the officer’s authority.” Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).6 Furthermore, an arrest is complete only if “a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.” Id. (citing United States v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir.1988)). The subjective intent of either the police officer or the defendant is irrelevant. Medford, 13 S.W.3d at 773-74.
Although the stop of Gomez’s van may have been justified as a traffic stop, or perhaps even as an “investigatory stop” of both Vicioso and Gomez,7 once the officers handcuffed Vicioso, placed him in a squad car, and drove him to the Department (much less strip-searched him and placed him in a cell), it cannot be disputed that he was under arrest. The question is: Was the arrest legal?
Statutory Basis
It is undisputed that no warrant for Vicioso’s arrest was obtained until the next day. Chapter Fourteen of the Code of Criminal Procedure details when an officer may make a warrantless arrest. Tex. Code Crim.PROC. Ann. arts. 14.01-14.06. Under these facts, none of the articles in Chapter Fourteen apply, nor does the State so argue.8 Therefore, the arrest, and the subsequent detention, were illegal. A “voluntary” confession given after an illegal arrest is tainted, and, as “a direct result of’ the arrest, must be excluded under article 38.23(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex. Crim.App.1986) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). Article 38.23(a) reads in part:
No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.2001). Therefore, Vicioso’s statement should have been excluded at trial.
Constitutional Basis
Aside from Chapter Fourteen and article 38.23, the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause before an arrest without a warrant can be made. U.S. Const, amend. IV; State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). “Probable cause for an arrest exists where, at that moment, facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, would warrant a reasonably prudent person in believing that a particular person has committed or is com-
[111]*111mitting a crime.” Id. There is no basis in these facts on which to find probable cause. Buster’s testimony affirmatively shows that he knew he did not have probable cause at the time Vicioso was arrested. Therefore, the arrest was illegal, and the confession should have been excluded under the “exclusionary rule” as “a direct result of’ the arrest. Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 787 (citing Wong Sun, 871 U.S. at 485, 83 S.Ct. at 416).
Attenuation of the Taint
Because the statement is made inadmissible by the express wording of article 88.23, and also by the exclusionary rule, it might appear our analysis is finished. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when the complained of evidence is a confession given after an illegal arrest, the analysis must continue. Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 261 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 788-89. We must also determine if the confession was given so freely and voluntarily that the causal connection between the arrest and the confession is broken, and therefore any taint from the illegal arrest is removed, thereby making the statement admissible. Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 788-89. To make this determination, we analyze the facts against four factors.
1. Were Miranda warnings given?
2. How much time elapsed between the arrest and the confession?
3. What intervening circumstances occurred between the arrest and the confession?
4. What was the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct?
Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 788 (citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604-05, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)).
Buster testified he “Mirandized” Vicioso just before taking his confession. Vicioso denied he was ever “Mirandized.” However, if this occurred it was only after Vicioso had been strip-searched and body-cavity searched, placed in a cell, told that Gomez had confessed and implicated him in burglaries, and threatened with indictment for a weapons charge. We do not find that this factor weighs in the State’s favor.
About three hours elapsed between the arrest at the road-stop and when Vicioso gave the written statement. Considering the stress under which he was placed (strip-searched and body-cavity searched, placed in a cell, threatened by Buster), “an inference of a lack of time for reflection appears warranted.” Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 789.
The intervening circumstances between the arrest and the statement clearly weigh in Vicioso’s favor. To repeat, after he was arrested, he was taken to jail, strip-searched and body-cavity searched, placed in a cell, and threatened by Buster. These circumstances do not support an inference that Vicioso’s statement was freely given.
Finally, the fourth factor, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct, is one of the most important of the factors. Id.; Renfro v. State, 958 S.W.2d 880, 886-87 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref'd). In this case, there was no probable cause and no warrant. There may not even have been sufficient reason for an “investigatory detention” of Vicioso. This was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and of Chapter Fourteen. This factor weighs heavily in Vicioso’s favor.
We conclude that the taint was not attenuated. See Hadnot v. State, 945 S.W.2d 278, 285-86 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1997, no pet.) (taint not attenuated — the main purpose of the illegal arrest was investigatory).
[112]*112
Conclusion
The arrest was illegal, and there was no attenuation of the taint. The statement, as a “fruit of the poisonous tree,” should not have been admitted at trial.
HARM ANALYSIS
Having concluded that admission of the statement was error, we must next determine if we should grant Vicioso a new trial. We must reverse for constitutional error unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). The admission of the written statement was a constitutional error.
The application of the standard of reversing for constitutional errors was explained in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 88, 84 S.Ct. 229, 231, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963), the Harris court said: “We are not concerned here with whether there was sufficient evidence on which the petitioner could have been convicted without the evidence complained of. The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction. To decide this question, it is necessary to review the facts of the case and the evidence adduced at trial.” Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 585. The goal is to examine all the evidence “solely to trace the impact of the error. The untainted evidence is not to be weighed in its own right, nor is it to be examined to see if it is cumulative with the tainted evidence.” Id. Based on Harris, we do not review the evidence against Vicioso at trial, absent his own statement, to determine if the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. That would place us in the shoes of the jury, substituting ourselves for the jury as factfinder. Rather, our inquiry is whether we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement did not prejudice the jurors’ decision-making process. Id. at 587.
Harris states six factors we should consider in reaching our conclusion: (1) the source of the error, (2) the nature of the error, (3) whether and to what extent the State emphasized the error, (4) the probable implications of the error, (5) how much weight a juror would probably place on the error, and (6) whether declaring the error harmless would encourage the State to repeat the error.
Other than his own written confession, the primary evidence against Vici-oso at trial was Gomez. However, Gomez is an “accomplice witness.” The Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.
Tex. Code CRiM. Proc. Ann., art. 38.14 (Vernon 1979). The trial court gave an accomplice-witness instruction in the jury charge based on this statute.
The source and nature of the error here was a blatant violation of Vicioso’s Fourth Amendment rights by law enforcement officers. Declaring the error harmless would not encourage law enforcement to follow the Constitution as well as Chapter Fourteen in the future. Furthermore, the State certainly emphasized and relied on the confession throughout the trial. In addition, there is hardly ever more damaging evidence in a criminal trial than the defendant’s admission of guilt. With the remaining evidence consisting primarily of the accusations of the accomplice witness, it is likely that the jury relied, at least in part, on the confession when reaching the [113]*113verdict. Based on this analysis, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury was not affected by Vicioso’s statement. Therefore, we find the admission of the statement to be harmful error requiring reversal.
Because we find a harmful constitutional error, we do not reach the issue of whether the violation of Chapter Fourteen should result in reversal.9
OTHER POINTS
Because we will reverse on the suppression point, we do not decide Vicioso’s other complaints.
CONCLUSION
Vicioso’s statutory and constitutional rights were violated when he was illegally arrested The statement he gave was therefore inadmissible at trial. The court’s error in overruling the suppression motion and admitting the statement at trial was harmful. We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Justice GRAY dissenting.