Following a stipulated bench trial, Walter Proctor appeals his conviction of trafficking in cocaine1 and possessing a controlled substance in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act.2 Specifically, Proctor challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop, arguing that the searching officer 1 lacked authority to stop him, and 2 obtained his consent to search only after unduly prolonging the traffic stop. Finding these arguments to be without merit, we affirm. While the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts in a ruling on a motion to suppress will be reviewed to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous, where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.3 So viewed, the record shows that an officer patrolling an interstate highway observed Proctor following the vehicle in front of him approximately one car-length away. Proctor was driving with the regular flow of traffic in a 70 mile-per-hour speed zone and had ample room to pass the vehicle he followed. As the officer pursued, he watched Proctor maintain this close distance for approximately one mile, so the officer executed a traffic stop for following too closely.4 The officer asked Proctor to exit his vehicle and to provide his driver’s license and proof of insurance. Proctor cooperated, and the officer returned to his cruiser to write a citation and to call dispatch to run a computer check on Proctor’s information. The officer returned with the citation and Proctor’s license, and while waiting to hear back from dispatch, he asked Proctor for consent to search his vehicle, which Proctor gave. During the search, the officer found in the back seat what turned out to be 152.04 grams of cocaine and 1.91 grams of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetimine MDMA, a Schedule I controlled substance.5
Proctor was arrested and charged with trafficking and possession violations based on the cocaine and MDMA respectively; following his unsuccessful motion to suppress, he stipulated to possessing the contraband. The trial court convicted Proctor on both the trafficking and possession counts, and this appeal followed.
