1879; Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 16 . Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 63 (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 419, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996)). 17 . Id. (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109, 98 S.Ct. 330, 332, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam)). 18 . Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325-26, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); see also United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S.Ct. 675, 683, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (examining under Terry both "the length and intrusiveness of the stop and detention”). 19 . Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242-43. 20 . Terry, 392 U.S. at 29, 88 S.Ct. at 1884. 21 . Id. at 25-26, 88 S.Ct. at 1882; see also Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 118, 119 S.Ct. 484, 488, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998) (invalidating stat 7 (<HOLDING>). 47 . Id. at 435, 111 S.Ct. at 2386; see State
holding officers request for passengers identification during stop constituted lawful consensual encounter holding that if random suspicionless questioning of bus passengers for inspection of identification and tickets was consensual encounter it was not a violation of passengers fourth amendment rights holding that questioning of passengers on bus including asking for drivers licenses and tickets constituted consensual encounter and passengers were free to decline to answer questions holding a troopers request for a driver and passengers identification and his questioning of them did not violate the fourth amendment because he observed an actual traffic violation after stopping the defendants vehicle and thus his reasonable suspicion was not dispelled holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license