briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional infor mation.” Id. (quoting Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 1647, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985)). 39 . Rhodes, 945 S.W.2d at 117 (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (extending Terry, which involved stop of citizens on street, to occupant of vehicle)). 40 . Gearing v. State, 685 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (quoting Royer, 460 U.S. at 497, 103 S.Ct. at 1324), overruled on other grounds by Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 41 . Shabazz, 993 F.2d at 436. 42 . Id. 43 . Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). 44 . Accord State v. Hernandez, 64 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174,
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 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 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 presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed holding officers request for passengers identification during stop constituted lawful consensual encounter