An officer observed Omar Salmeron driving too closely behind another vehicle, and also noticed that one of the brake lights on Salmeron’s car was not functioning. The officer initiated a traffic stop and began to write a citation. Having detected a heavy odor of air freshener in the interior of the automobile, the officer suspected that Salmeron might have used it to mask the presence of alcohol or narcotics. He asked for consent to search the vehicle, and Salmeron agreed. One of the rear seats was not fastened properly and, when the officer removed it, two kilograms of cocaine were exposed. Subsequently, another kilogram of cocaine was discovered in the car. The grand jury indicted Salmeron for trafficking in the contraband. He filed a pre-trial motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found Salmeron guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of Salmeron’s motion to suppress, and affirmed his conviction. Salmeron v. State , 273 Ga. App. 55 614 SE2d 177 2005. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that law enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment during the traffic stop by asking Salmeron for consent to search. 1. The Fourth Amendment is not violated when, during the course of a valid traffic stop, an officer questions the driver or occupants of a vehicle and requests consent to conduct a search. The Supreme Court of the United State has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Cits. “Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Cit.. . . . Unless the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there is no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Muehler v. Mena , 544 U. S. 93 125 SC 1465, 161 LE2d 299 2005.
Therefore, the dispositive factor in this case is not the nature or subject of the officer’s questioning, but whether that questioning took place during Salmeron’s otherwise lawful detention for committing the traffic violations in the officer’s presence. If a driver is questioned and gives consent while he is being lawfully detained during a traffic stop, there is no Fourth Amendment violation. Harris v. State , 269 Ga. App. 48 603 SE2d 476 2004. However, “a seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U. S.405, 407 125 SC 834, 160 LE2d 842 2005. “The officer’s purpose in an ordinary traffic stop is to enforce the laws of the roadway, and ordinarily to investigate the manner of driving with the intent to issue a citation or warning. Once the purpose of that stop has been fulfilled, the continued detention of the car and the occupants amounts to a second detention. Cit.” Cits. Daniel v. State , 277 Ga. 840, 841 1 597 SE2d 116 2004.
