similar questioning of the other occupants “lasted barely 40 seconds”—and there was no evidence that any other matter was discussed. In addition, the patrol car was unlocked, so Aponte was able to open the door and leave, as he did when he needed to vomit. And, while Aponte spoke in broken English, the district court credited Christen’s testimony that he and Aponte had no trouble communicating with each other. Aponte disputes that finding, but we find nothing in the video evidence that shows that the district court clearly erred. Finally, Christen returned Aponte’s license before asking for his consent to search the vehicle, which, in other circumstances, we have found relevant to whether an encounter is consensual. Cf. United States v. Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231, 1239-40 (11th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Taken together, the circumstances show that,
recognizing that once a completed traffic stop evolves into a consensual encounter there is no seizure and the fourth amendment is not implicated holding that an encounter was consensual where the defendant was comfortable during the encounter chose not to leave and acquiesced to the officers request to answer questions holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown holding questions about a drivers purpose for traveling were reasonably related to a traffic stop for speeding holding that the return of a defendants drivers license after a traffic stop can convert what was a brief seizure into a consensual encounter even where the officer questions the defendant about criminal activity immediately thereafter