questions to a driver after a traffic stop had concluded did not constitute a seizure or mendenhall this case differs from cosby in no meaningful way here the officer twice asked if there was a show force it would differ from cars cars speed was very similar to this case it was also an early morning traffic stop it was also a circumstance where the police officers were not walking in the more than reasonably the police officer had told the defendant that he was free to go so long as his passenger drove the vehicle despite the fact that the defendant in this case was driving without a valid license also of interpreted defendant's initial consent to search the vehicle when he said go ahead and search it to include both the car and the trunk but the officer reasonably decided that he would ask both for permission to search the interior of the vehicle and you're defendant misinterprets said his briefing we're not arguing that the first consent covered both and that therefore the inquiry ends there we're just saying that that shows that the officer was acting more than reasonably in these circumstances because the officer national permission to search the vehicle in those circumstances under mendenhall was a course of and then it just doesn't follow logically that when the defendant is  you can think of is where police officers ask a person of interest to come in voluntarily to police station for questioning when they do that they don't simply allow that person to roam freely throughout the police station but they will usually put them into a room an interview room and courts have frequently held that those circumstances don't create a seizure because the person has voluntarily consented to come in the consent is you're giving up some of your movement of that point in time your freedom to move for instance if an officer asked someone at an airport to search their bag when they can voluntarily consent to that they're giving up some movement at that point in time but  the courts hold that the person can always end that consensual encounter at any point in time and say ok you know this search is taking too long there's no nothing in the record to show that bennett felt that that ten minute ten to fifteen minute search of the interior of the car took too long if he had he simply could have requested ok that's enough and we can end this now and i can leave with my passenger driving a car so i demanded hall there's simply nothing in the record i indicate that a reasonable person normal traffic stop would result in a second seizure because officer should should be permitted to place the passenger and driver of the vehicle into a city a location where they're going to be safe this was a traffic stop that took place at about two thirty in the morning we're going off i'm sorry please that were the officers yes it's both in the interests of officer safety because he doesn't want someone right next to him while he's got his head buried in the car searching around the current here but also for passenger safety you don't want them wandering about aimlessly along i eighty at two thirty in the morning it could be a hazard both of them into the other drivers that are traveling that thoroughfare so adopting his interpretation would mean that officers could not do that without constituting a second seizure and that would simply turn mendenhall on its  that is determined by the by the what the parties actually interpreted the consent to be it's subject to different deferential review and given the first position on the matter and given the state's position the matter i said i would agree with both of them that in they in fact what freedom we have those points is that is that is that the ten to fifteen minute time frame for the first search that makes that a seizure is an herb your i think is part of it yeah so following that through if consent and a defendant standing in a certain area for that period of time there's no seizure and then he can spaces can i search the trunk yeah go ahead any time there would be any search in which an argument could be made to search took too long we have received well yeah i think well the the time frame i think is one of the indirect indicator of what the doctor was doing in the car what really makes that he's no longer seized though he's now free to leave so he's just hired to do that i think the well i the question is what a reasonable person in defense position conserves are free to leave and what he was objectively not is the request for the second consent imply a that the defendant is free to leave him a search or trunk well you know i'm going to search your trunk stay here and i search your trunk another question there and then he got that across to them but they were required to be in that spot and that and that's where they stayed and they stayed there for fifteen minutes while he played you know vital to their car and we  different in the state so if you read at the time the suppression hearing the law in the state was different than what it is today and i think that accounts for a lot of the holes in the testimony a lot of issues ill he did not know then i guess he was still you know looking to find something he he never know beyond youngest you know hunch that well i smell a fragrance sometimes drug dealers have fragrances i was in that he never had anything more to justify you know this search so and so the you know the first you know the first search is valid because the thing to consent to it right after is fully free to leave but then fifteen minutes later after yes the officers testimony wasn't the only testimony about what happened here depends also testified after suppression hearing but defendant's testimony varied so wildly from what the officer that i don't think anyone's giving it any credibility at this point in time what the defendant said happened was that he never gave any consumption search the vehicle at all and that the officer just told him to go search your car so we've departed quite a bit from with arguments for at the opening suppression hearing at this point in time after this case has been up and down three times when the defendant says that there's this officer was making officially fishing expedition and implies that the officer was acting under a pretext to do anything he possibly could to search the vehicle but that simply wasn't the case the officer was willing to let the defendant drive away as long as a as long as the pastor drove the vehicle despite the fact that he was committing a no less the bill of rights he was driving without a license if there was any pretext here if this was a fishing expedition where the officer was acting with any kind of bad faith he simply could have the rest of the defendant  and just to be clear we're not abandoning the argument that the first consent could cover both it's just that reaching that issue doesn't seem necessary in this case because  discussed the fact that he was standing there and felt that he was not free to leave but there's nothing in the testimony by the officer saying that he told him he could not move from that spot he had simply said in his testimony that he placed him there and again that's it peaches forty three forty two of the record the court can review the officer's exact words there's also a report i says you know perhaps this particular defendant feels that he could accept that risk but he can't accept the risk for the drivers of the other vehicles that are pressing by if you've got people just wandering the freeway who knows what could happen and certainly in a civil lawsuit that came out later defendant one then be arguing while he sucked at the rest and he felt free to leave home if god forbid something it happened so i just don't think that's a reasonable rule for this court to adopt did and you kind of cast that in doubt that who would believe these defendants over and officers your position that if we have that conflict the officer should be believed rather than the defendant and the second part of that is does it make sense is it reasonable we defended who knows that he has drugs in the trunk to say search but there's i'm sorry i missed the last part it doesn't make sense that what that he defended who is aware knows that the that's the first question argument is not you should simply believe i'm saying this case number one of course not but here the trial court made a factual finding that the officers testimony was probable and more importantly so the point i was trying to make is his attorneys of abandoning any attempts to latch onto his original testimony and say that that is what happened everyone is accepting the officers testimony is what happened only question is whether or not the officer used a tone of voice that was so