Thomas Hill challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained when police extended a traffic stop and searched his vehicle after he gave consent. He argued that a reasonable person would still have believed he was detained when the officer requested consent, making the consent involuntary and the extension unlawful. The Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed and reversed. The court held that once the traffic-stop mission was complete, the officer needed valid consent or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before prolonging the detention and requesting an additional search. On the record, Hill’s consent was the product of the unlawful extension rather than a voluntary new encounter. The ruling required suppression of the resulting evidence.