Id. As an initial matter, we emphasize that Wilson’s challenge is to the scope of his seizure during the traffic stop, not to the search of the truck. In order to bring a direct challe nger’s conversation with Wilson, resulting in the disclosure of the bucket and its contents, did not extend the duration of the stop beyond the time required for these field sobriety tests. Thus, Wilson’s sole contention is that when Deputy Eichinger asked to look under the vest covering the bucket between Wilson’s feet, he unreasonably expanded the scope of Wilson’s detention beyond that permitted based on either a routine traffic violation or a reasonable suspicion that VanHouden was driving under the influence of alcohol. We agree that Deputy Eichinger’s request to see beneath the vest th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Jones, 44 F.3d at 872 (holding an officer
holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding an officer could ask for consent to search the trunk of a car where he had reasonable suspicion that the driver had crossed the border illegally and could be transporting illegal aliens holding that an officer had probable cause to search bags in the trunk of the car when he opened the trunk and smelled a strong odor of methamphetamine holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search