police tactics that may burden the public — for all suspects (even the guilty ones) may protect themselves fully by declining to answer. Nor do the questions forcibly invade any privacy interest or extract information without the suspects’ consent. United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 954 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 829, 123 S.Ct. 126, 154 L.Ed.2d 43 (2002). In this case, after Burton gave Officer Davidson a valid driver’s license, he was asked only a handful of questions, including whether he would consent to a search of the automobile. The record pro vides no reason to suspect either that these questions were unusually intrusive or that asking them made this traffic stop any more coercive than a typical traffic stop. Robinette, 519 U.S. at 39, 117 S.Ct. 417 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 822-23
holding defendant gave a valid and knowing consent to a search of his dwelling and automobile when he agreed to the terms of probation holding that a reasonable investigation of a traffic stop typically includes asking for a license and registration asking the driver to sit in the patrol car and asking about destination and purpose of travel holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave holding that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered  stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his drivers license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the fourth amendment holding that asking a detained motorist whether he would consent to a search of his automobile for contraband even after he had produced a valid drivers license did not necessarily make the traffic stop unreasonable in scope or duration