to show that when viewing the evidence in such a manner, the trial court committed reversible error. Harris v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 689, 695, 668 S.E.2d 141, 145 (2008). The question of whether a search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment is “a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo” on appeal. Id. at 694, 668 S.E.2d at 145. An appellate court independently reviews the trial court’s application of relevant legal principles such as whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause supported a seizure. Brooks v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 90, 95, 712 S.E.2d 464, 466 (2011) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). In doing so, however, the Court is “bound by the trial court’s factual findings unless those finding (<HOLDING>). Detective Fraser, a trained law enforcement
holding that even if an officer has an ulterior motive that does not authorize him to conduct a traffic stop of a particular vehicle he may still lawfully execute the stop if he observes the driver violate a traffic law holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that if an officer observes a driver commit a traffic violation he has probable causeand thus also the lesser included reasonable suspicionto stop that driver holding that it was impermissible for an officer to question a driver about matters unrelated to the traffic stop after the officer had fulfilled the purpose of the stop by issuing a written warning to the driver