State v. Provet, 747 S.E.2d 453

Officer Corporal John Owens stopped Provet for following too closely and a burned-out tag light on I-85; he asked for license and registration.
Officer observed excessive shaking and accelerated breathing, vehicle registered to a third party, and inconsistent answers about a Holiday Inn; he conducted a pat-down (no weapons) and called for a drug canine while arranging a warning citation.
Officer inspected the vehicle and noticed multiple air fresheners, fast food bags, receipts, a cell phone, and a rear-seat bag; dispatcher later cleared license and registration and Officer issued a warning.
After returning documents and issuing the warning, Officer asked for consent to search; Provet initially assented, then fled on foot and was apprehended; the canine alerted on a fast-food bag containing cocaine.
Trial court denied suppression, finding (1) the initial stop was not unreasonably prolonged, (2) Officer had reasonable suspicion to detain further, and (3) Provet voluntarily consented; Court of Appeals affirmed and this Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged / whether Officer had reasonable suspicion for a second seizure	Provet: off-topic questioning (after citation decision) unlawfully extended the stop and no reasonable suspicion justified further detention	State: off-topic questions do not create a new seizure if they do not measurably extend the stop; Officer had articulable facts (nervousness, third-party registration, inconsistent statements, items in car, air fresheners, delay tactics) creating reasonable suspicion	Court: affirmed — ten-minute stop reasonable; off-topic questioning did not measurably extend the stop; objective facts supported reasonable suspicion for additional detention
Whether Provet voluntarily consented to the vehicle search	Provet: consent was not voluntary (occurring after a completed stop) and thus invalid; reliance on cases where consent followed an unlawful seizure	State: consent was voluntary — Officer had returned documents, issued warning, no show of force or coercion; higher Robinson standard not implicated because seizure was lawful/justified	Court: affirmed — totality of circumstances supports voluntariness; consent was not the exploitation of an unlawful seizure

United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (articulable facts standard for investigative stops)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (officer's subjective intent irrelevant to Fourth Amendment objective test)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual motives do not invalidate seizure if objective justification exists)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (off-topic questioning during traffic stop permissible if it does not measurably extend the stop)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (questions unrelated to the basis for detention do not constitute a separate seizure if detention duration is not extended)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officer may order driver out of vehicle during lawful traffic stop)
United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 2000) (deliberate delays to await canine can violate Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011) (discusses limits where objective reasonable suspicion is lacking and courts scrutinize post hoc rationalizations)
State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518 (2010) (distinguished on facts regarding sufficiency of suspicion)
State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84 (Ct.App. 2005) (consent after concluded encounter held involuntary; distinguished because that case involved an unlawful seizure)
State v. Rivera, 384 S.C. 356 (Ct.App. 2009) (discussed and distinguished; language on scope of questioning superseded by later U.S. Supreme Court precedent)