Following a bench trial, David Hughes appeals his conviction of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute,1 possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug offense,2 and carrying a concealed weapon.3 Specifically, Hughes contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered and seized after a traffic stop.4 Because the initial traffic stop was justified, and because Hughes voluntarily consented to the subsequent searches giving rise to the discovery of contraband, 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.5Citations omitted. Vansant v. State .6 So viewed, the evidence from the suppression hearing shows that two police officers, who were surveilling Hughes based on a tip from a confidential informant, followed Hughes as he got in his car and drove to a destination. As Hughes drove, the officers noticed that Hughes was not wearing a seatbelt, and, upon radioing Hughes’s tag number to dispatch, the officers learned that Hughes’s vehicle lacked insurance. The officers, who wore plain clothes and police badges, activated the blue lights and siren on their unmarked vehicle and followed Hughes. Hughes continued for approximately a quarter mile, made a turn, and did not stop until he pulled into the driveway of his destination.
The officers approached Hughes, who had exited his vehicle, and informed him that they pulled him over because he did not have his seatbelt on and because his vehicle lacked insurance. A uniformed officer soon arrived and issued written warnings for the seatbelt and insurance violations, and the officers then told Hughes he was “free to go.” As Hughes walked back to his vehicle, an officer asked Hughes “if he minded speaking with me again,” and Hughes readily responded, “sure.” The officer asked why someone would report “information that Hughes was possibly dealing narcotics,” and Hughes speculated that someone must be angry at him. The officer then asked if Hughes would consent to a search of his vehicle, and Hughes agreed.
