stopped his car and approached his window. We see no evidence that Byrd targeted Pulliam because he fit a particular profile. Instead, Byrd followed Pul-liam because he saw him make an abrupt lane change that could indicate driving under the influence. And once Byrd saw Pulliam violate § 27-51-302, he was entitled to stop his car. III. Pulliam contends that even if the traffic stop was legal, Byrd violated his Fourth Amendment rights by continuing to detain him after he had finished- investigating the traffic violation. Byrd asked for Pulliam’s license and registration, wrote up a traffic ticket, and questioned Pulliam about his trip while Pulliam was in the back of his squad car. Byrd had a right to do all of these things. See United States v. Ramos, 42 F.Sd 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Byrd next either held on to Pulliam’s license
holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans 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 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 during a routine traffic stop it is reasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing the driver in a patrol car if placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation prevents officers or the driver from being subjected to a dangerous condition and placing the driver in the patrol car is the least intrusive means to avoid the dangerous condition holding that request for license destination and purpose of trip within reasonable scope of detention