Fоllowing a bench trial, the Superior Court of Henry County found Carlos Hall guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of marijuana, OCGA § 16-13-30 (j), and obstructing or hindering a law enfоrcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties, OCGA § 16-10-24 (a). Hall appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress marijuana that wаs seized during a consent search of a car in which he was a passenger. In alternative arguments, Hall contends that the arresting officer lacked a valid bаsis for initiating the traffic stop; that the driver’s consent to search was the product of an unreasonably prolonged detention; and that his objection to the search counteracted the driver’s consent. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
On appeal from a ruling on a motion to suppress, we must cоnstrue the evidence most favorably to affirming the trial court’s factual findings and judgment. We accept the trial court’s factual and credibility determinations unless they are clearly erroneous, and the factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by any evidence. The trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts, however, is subject to a de novo standard of review.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Peterson v. State,
At the hearing on Hall’s motion to suppress, the trial court received the following evidence. On July 22, 2008, an officer, who was monitoring southbound traffic on 1-75 in Henry County, observed a 2008 Dodge Caliber hatchback traveling at between 60 and 70 mph and following another vehicle аt a distance of less than half of a car length. The officer stopped the Caliber for following too closely, a violation of OCGA § 40-6-49. Mark Turner was driving, and Hall was his only passenger. Hall handed the officer a rental agreement for the Caliber, which showed that Kamara Awes rented the car in Florida with a planned return datе of July 15, 2008.
As the officer began handling the traffic violation, he had difficulty hearing Turner’s responses, because Turner talked under his breath and because of noise from рassing traffic. The officer *485 asked Turner to step out of the car and then asked about his route that day. Approximately four minutes after the beginning of the traffic stоp, the officer radioed his dispatcher to verify Turner’s license. While the officer waited for a report on the status check, he asked Hall his name and date of birth. Approximately eight minutes after the beginning of the stop, the officer asked Turner for his consent to search the car. Turner gave his consent, and the оfficer asked Turner and Hall to sit on the guardrail in front of the Caliber while he performed the search. During his search of the back seat, the officer smelled the odor of raw marijuana. The officer raised the back hatch and opened a box that was in the cargo area behind the back seat. He found ten pоunds of marijuana that was packaged as a “brick” and encased in plastic. The report on the officer’s status check of Turner’s driver’s license camе in about thirteen minutes after the beginning of the stop, about four minutes after the officer began searching the Caliber, and about one minute before he found the marijuana.
After finding the marijuana, the officer told Turner and Hall to place their hands on the car. Hall ran around to the driver’s seat, tried unsuccessfully to start the car, and then ran across the highway and into the woods, where he was apprehended.
1. Hall contends that, despite the officer’s testimony that he observed the violation of following too closely, the video recording of the traffic stop establishes as a matter of law that there was no traffic violation and, therefore, that the officer had no valid reason to pull the car over.
1
OCGA § 40-6-49 (a) defines the traffic violation of following too closely as follows: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” Based on the officer’s testimony that his dashboard camera began to record after the truck that Turner had been following too closely had exited, and based on our own review of the recording, we conclude that the video recording of the traffic stop doеs not establish as a matter of law that the officer did not observe Turner following a vehicle more closely than was reasonable and prudent, having due regаrd for the vehicles’ speeds and the traffic conditions. Because the trial court was authorized to find that the officer observed the violation, and because a brief investigative stop of a vehicle is authorized whenever
*486
an officer observes a traffic offense,
2
the court did not err in denying Hall’s motion to suppress on this basis.
Proctor v. State,
2. Hall contends that the officer prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time reasonably required to issue Turner a citation for following too closely and, therefore, that Turner’s consent to search was not valid.
“The Fourth Amendment is not violated when, during the course of a valid traffic stop, an оfficer questions the driver or occupants of a vehicle and requests consent to conduct a search.”
Salmeron v. State,
In this case, it is undisputed that the officer requested and obtained Turner’s consent to search before the officer received the verification of Turner’s driver’s license. Thus, the questioning and request for consent to search occurred before the purpose of the traffic stop was fulfilled.
Salmerón v. State,
3. Hall contends that he objected to the search of the Caliber and, therefore, that, even if Turner’s consent to search was valid, the *487 officer lacked authority to search thе car. It is undisputed, however, that Hall was not an owner or lessor of the Caliber. Furthermore, it is well settled that Turner, as the driver, had immediate control of the car and, therefore, authority to consent to a search. 3 Nor did the circumstances suggest that Hall had an exclusive interest in the box that would limit the scope of Turner’s general consent. 4 Accordingly, Hall’s argument that the search was unauthorized because he did not consent fails.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
See
Baker v.
State,
Proctor v. State,
United States v. Matlock,
See
Florida v. Jimeno,