Per Curiam-.
Ronnie Morlock appeals his convictions of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and no tax stamp. Morlock claims tire district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. This case arose from a traffic stop in which Morlock was the passenger. Specifically, Morlock claims that the arresting officer violated his constitutional rights by asking questions about travel plans which were unrelated to the purpose and the scope of the traffic stop. Morlock also claims that the arresting officer exceeded the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop when he ran a warrant check on Morlock’s driver’s license without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Factual and procedural background
On February 3, 2006, at 5:22 p.m., Deputy Henry Cocking of the Sedgwick County Sheriffs Department was traveling eastbound on Highway 54 when he observed a van with Arizona tags driving in front of him. Cocking worked as a K-9 handler and primarily investigated narcotics. His work shift that day was ending, and Cocking was on his way home with his narco tics-detection dog in the back of the patrol vehicle. Cocking followed the van for approximately 1 mile and noticed the driver failed to signal two different times when changing lanes. Cocking activated his emergency lights and stopped the van. Once Cocking activated his emergency lights, the video mounted in his patrol vehicle began recording, although the audio failed to record.
Cocking approached the driver of the van, Ronald O’Kelly, who was 16-years-old, and Cocking asked O’Kelly to produce his driver’s license. Cocking noticed that O’Kelly was nervous when obtaining his driver’s license, that he was shaking and trembling, and that he dropped the license into his lap. Cocking also noticed that the passenger, Morloek, was staring straight ahead and never looked at Cocking. Cocking thought the behavior of both O’Kelly [219]*219and Morlock was odd, although he admitted some young drivers, like O’Kelly, may be nervous when stopped by an officer.
Cocking asked O’Kelly to step out of the vehicle, and he and O’Kelly walked to the rear of the van. Cocking asked O’Kelly if the information on his driver’s license was correct and “where he was coming from.” O’Kelly said that the information was correct and that he was traveling from Phoenix to Kansas City. Cocking asked O’Kelly how long he had been in Phoenix, and O’Kelly indicated a couple of days. Cocking asked O’Kelly why he was in Phoenix, and O’Kelly said he was visiting his dad’s girlfriend. O’Kelly also told Cocking that the van was rented by his dad. He identified his dad as Morlock, the passenger of the van. •
At that point, Cocking went to the passenger side of the van and asked Morlock for the rental agreement and his driver’s Acense. While Morlock was looking for the rental agreement, Cocking asked him “where he was going or coming from.” Morlock said he was traveling from Phoenix to Kansas City. Cocking asked Morlock how long he had been in Phoenix, and Morlock responded he had been in Phoenix for 2 days. Cocking asked Morlock why he went to Phoenix. Morlock responded that he went to see a woman he had met on the Internet, but he was unable to contact her. Upon examining the rental agreement, Cocking determined that the van was rented from Tucson and not from Phoenix. Cocking asked Morlock about this discrepancy, and Morlock said he had flown into “a Phoenix/Tucson airport located right in that area.” Cocking asked Morlock why he flew to Phoenix but was driving back. Morlock explained that he did not have enough money to purchase a return flight, so he rented the van.
Cocking then took both driver’s Acenses and the rental agreement to his patrol vehicle. While walking past the van, Cocking looked into the rear window and noticed four bags in the cargo area. Cocking found the number of bags unusual because Morlock and O’Kelly had said they were in Phoenix for only a couple of days. While in the patrol vehicle, Cocking wrote O’Kelly a warning citation and ran both names through a warrant check.
When both names cleared the warrant check, Cocking returned to the passenger side of the van. Both Morlock and O’Kelly were [220]*220seated in the van. Cocking handed the documents to Morlock, stepped back, and said, “Have a nice day.” Cocldng turned and walked one or two steps away from the van toward his patrol vehicle, and then he turned and reapproached the van. The passenger window was still down. Cocking asked, “Hey, do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?” Morlock and O’Kelly both responded, “Yeah, go ahead.” Cocking testified that he spoke in a friendly manner and he never displayed his firearm when he reapproached the van.
Cocldng asked Morlock and O’Kelly if they would mind stepping out of the van, and both complied. Cocking directed them to stand near the front of the van. Cocking asked Morlock if he could search his person for weapons, and Morlock agreed. Cocking searched and found no weapons on Morlock; Cocking then told Morlock that large amounts of drugs were transported on Highway 54 and asked him if he had drugs or weapons in his van. Morlock said he did not. At that point, Cocldng asked, “Can I search your car?” and Morlock responded, “Yes.”
After opening the rear of the van, Cocking opened one of the suitcases in the cargo area. Cocking observed cellophane packages that he believed were packaged drugs. Cocking stuck a knife into one of the packages, and he smelled and saw marijuana. Cocking then arrested both Morlock and O’Kelly and called for backup. Law enforcement officers ultimately removed 113 pounds of marijuana from the van.
Morlock was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell and no tax stamp. Morlock filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The district court held a hearing on the motion in conjunction with a bench trial. At trial, Morlock conceded the initial stop was proper, but he argued his detention was not reasonably related to the scope of the stop. The State argued that the encounter became voluntary after Cocking returned die documents to Morlock, and even if the encounter was not voluntary, Cocldng had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support further investigation after the purpose of the traffic stop was completed.
After hearing the evidence, the district court found that the encounter between Cocldng and Morlock was continuous and never [221]*221became voluntary. However, the district court found that Cocking articulated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to continue the investigation after the purpose of the traffic stop was completed. Thereafter, the district court found that Morlock voluntarily consented to the search of the van. The district court overruled Morlock’s motion to suppress the evidence and found him guilty as charged. Morlock timely appeals.
Morlock claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, Morlock claims Cocking violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by asking questions of Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans which were unrelated to the purpose and the scope of the traffic stop. Morlock also claims that Cocking exceeded the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop when he ran a warrant check on Morlock’s driver’s license without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Under the circumstances, Morlock claims that he was unlawfully detained and Cocking did not receive a voluntary consent to search the van.
The State contends that Cocking asked Morlock and O’Kelly routine questions about their travel plans during a valid traffic stop. The State contends that after the stop concluded, the encounter became voluntary, and Morlock consented to a search of his van. The State argues that even if the encounter did not become voluntary, Cocking had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to extend the duration of the traffic stop.
Burden of proof and standard of review
The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was lawful. K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Anderson, 281 Kan. 896, 901, 136 P.3d 406 (2006). In reviewing a district court’s decision regarding the suppression of evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard with independent judgment. An appellate court does not reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts [222]*222in the evidence. State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2, 8, 128 P.3d 382 (2006).
When the material facts to the district court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. State v. Porting, 281 Kan. 320, 324, 130 P.3d 1173 (2006). Here, Cocking was the only witness who testified on the suppression issue and his testimony was undisputed. At the end of the hearing, the district court was not required to weigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. The district court’s determination that Cocking articulated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was a legal conclusion drawn from the evidence which is subject to this court’s unlimited review. State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344, 350, 154 P.3d 1 (2007). An appellate court does not give deference to the district court’s judgment on questions of law. State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 608, 147 P.3d 1076 (2006).
Questioning about travel plans
Morloclc claims it was impermissible for Cocking to ask him and his son about their travel plans. He claims the questions were unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop. He further claims the questions exceeded the reasonable scope of his detention and violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
We begin our analysis by examining the applicable constitutional provisions. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” of “persons.” Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides protection identical to that provided under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. “[T]he wording and scope of the two sections are identical for all practical purposes. If conduct is prohibited by one it is prohibited by the other.” State v. Johnson, 253 Kan. 356, 362, 856 P.2d 134 (1993).
A routine traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. State v. McKeown, 249 Kan. 506, 510, 819 P.2d 644 (1991). The seizure resulting from a traffic stop is generally analyzed as an [223]*223investigatory detention. As a result, courts examine the reasonableness of a traffic stop under the principles set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 18, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). These principles are codified at K.S.A. 22-2402(1), which provides:
“Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand the name, address of such suspect, and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.” (Emphasis added.)
The State’s response to Morlock’s argument is straightforward. K.S.A. 22-2402(1) specifically provides that during an investigatory detention, a law enforcement officer may request an explanation of the suspect’s actions. The State claims this statute expressly authorizes a law enforcement officer to question a suspect about his or her travel plans during a traffic stop.
We disagree with the State’s reliance on K.S.A. 22-2402(1) to justify Cooking’s questioning about travel plans. Although a routine traffic stop is akin to an investigatory detention, there is an important difference. In a traffic stop, the law enforcement officer usually stops the motorist for a particular reason, i.e., to issue a citation for an observed traffic offense. The law provides that such a stop must be minimally intrusive, diligently pursued, and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the initial interference. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605, 105 S. Ct. 1568 (1985). Issuing a traffic citation generally does not require the law enforcement officer to demand an explanation of the motorist’s actions.
The Kansas Supreme Court has previously described the reasonable scope of a routine traffic stop:
“A law enforcement officer conducting a routine traffic stop may request a driver’s license and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation. When the driver has produced a valid license and proof that he or she is entitled to operate the car, the driver must be allowed to proceed on his or her way, without being subject to further delay by the officer for additional questioning.” State v. Mitchell, 265 Kan. 238, 245, 960 P.2d 200 (1998).
The Kansas Supreme Court has further indicated that when the original purpose of a traffic stop has been completed, further questioning is permissible only if (1) the encounter between the officer [224]*224and the driver ceases to be a detention, but becomes consensual, and the driver voluntarily consents to additional questioning, or (2) during the traffic stop the officer gains a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver is engaged in illegal activity. State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 734, 952 P.2d 1276 (1998).
Kansas courts have never explicitly addressed whether a law enforcement officer may question a detained driver or a passenger about his or her travel plans without unconstitutionally extending the scope of the traffic stop. In some cases, Kansas courts have considered a detained motorist’s answers to an officer’s questions about travel plans to determine whether the officer developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to extend the traffic stop. See State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344, 355, 154 P.3d 1 (2007) (officer questioned driver about travel route from Las Vegas to Maryland); DeMarco, 263 Kan. at 739 (officer questioned driver and passenger about purpose of trip to Los Angeles); State v. Chapman, 23 Kan. App. 2d 999, 1010, 939 P.2d 950 (1997) (officer questioned driver about trip from Arizona). However, these cases do not address whether it was permissible for the law enforcement officer to question a detained motorist about his or her travel plans in the first place.
Our research has uncovered a line of federal cases that hold a law enforcement officer may inquire about a detained driver’s travel plans during a traffic stop without unconstitutionally extending the scope of the stop. United States v. Betancourt, 2008 WL 1970950, at *1 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 459 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 268 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1176 (2000); United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1161 (2000). The Tenth Circuit has directly addressed this issue multiple times and concluded that “questions relating to a driver’s travel plans ordinarily fall within the scope of a traffic stop.” United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 2001); see United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1176 [225]*225(10th Cir. 2000). Although courts have held that questions about travel plans generally fall within the scope of a traffic stop, courts have also held that a citizen is not legally obligated to answer such routine questions and that an officer cannot compel an answer to these questions. See Williams, 271 F.3d at 1267.
State courts have similarly held that during a routine traffic stop a law enforcement officer may ask a detained driver about his or her travel plans. See Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1049 (Del. 2001) (relying on statute that allowed officers to question detained motorists on destination); Woodard v. State, 289 Ga. App. 643, 647, 658 S.E.2d 129 (2008); State v. Ramirez, 2008 WL 2357707, at *3 (Idaho App. 2008); People v. Williams, 472 Mich. 308, 315-16, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005); Tyler v. Kyler, 15 Neb. App. 939, 944, 739 N.W.2d 463 (2007); State v. Baum, 393 N.J. Super. 275, 286-87, 923 A.2d 276 (2007); State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App. 3d 585, 596-98, 657 N.E.2d 591(1995); Marinaro v. State, 163 P.3d 833, 835 (Wyo. 2007).
In many of the cases that permit a law enforcement officer to question a driver about travel plans, the facts were limited to questions concerning the driver’s place of departure or destination. However, in some of the cases the scope of the permissible questioning was much broader. See Brigham, 382 F.3d at 507-08 (officer permitted to ask about the purpose and itinerary of a driver’s trip); Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1153 (when motorist responded that she was returning from a family reunion, officer was permitted to ask how long her family reunion had lasted and where it was held); Baum, 393 N.J. Super, at 286-87 (officer may ask routine questions of the vehicle’s occupants, such as where they are going and coming from, and for what purpose); Carlson, 102 Ohio App. 3d at 597-98 (officer permitted to ask motorist why she had left California and why her boyfriend had not accompanied her on the trip).
Although courts have uniformly held that a law enforcement officer may question the driver of a vehicle about travel plans, there is limited authority upholding such questioning of passengers. See United States v. Muriel, 418 F.3d 720, 726 (7th Cir. 2005); Tyler, 15 Neb. App. at 944; People v. Bunch, 207 Ill. 2d 7, 796 N.E.2d 1024 (2003). However, die court in Muriel believed that Terry stop [226]*226limitations were not applicable where the stop was based on probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion. 418 F.3d at 724. In Tyler, the court held that the defendant was no longer in the vehicle at the time of the encounter and therefore not subject to the “investigatory authority flowing from an observed traffic violation.” 15 Neb. App. at 945. Finally, in Bunch, the court concluded that passenger questioning as to travel plans after the stop was concluded unreasonably prolonged the passenger s detention and required suppression of the evidence. 207 Ill. 2d at 15-20.
In summaiy, the cases from other jurisdictions hold that during a routine traffic stop, a law enforcement officer may question the driver about his or her travel plans provided that the questioning is reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop and the questioning does not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of the stop. Courts further emphasize that a citizen is not legally obligated to answer routine questions about travel plans and that an officer cannot compel an answer to these questions.
In a letter of additional authority, the State has cited Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 161 L. Ed. 2d 299, 125 S. Ct. 1465 (2005), for the proposition that during a lawful detention, a law enforcement officer may question a suspect about matters unrelated to the detention. In Mena, the respondent and others were detained in handcuffs for 2 to 3 hours during a search of the premises they occupied. During the detention, law enforcement officers questioned the respondent about her immigration status. The respondent later sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming she had been detained in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court found in the defendant’s favor, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The United States Supreme Court reversed and held that the respondent’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 544 U.S. at 98-100. The Court also held that the officers’ questioning of the respondent, during the lawful detention, about her immigration status did not constitute an independent Fourth Amendment violation because mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure and there was [227]*227no evidence that the questioning prolonged the detention. 544 U.S. at 101.
The State argues that based upon Mena, a law enforcement officer may question a detained motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic stop, including the motorist’s travel plans, without violating the motorist’s constitutional rights. We disagree that the Court’s analysis in Mena readily applies to a traffic stop case. As previously stated, in a traffic stop the law enforcement officer usually stops the motorist for a particular reason, i.e., to issue a traffic citation for an observed traffic infraction. We do not believe that Mena overrules the longstanding federal and state precedent that a traffic stop must be reasonably related in scope and duration to the circumstances which justified the initial interference. In fact, the Kansas Supreme Court has recently held that Mena does not alter the general rule that a law enforcement officer violates tire Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights by asking a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation, while the driver and the passenger arq still being detained, to consent to a search that is unrelated to the purpose of the stop. State v. Smith, 286 Kan. 402, Syl. ¶ 2, 184 P.3d 890 (2008). To the extent that other courts have relied on Mena to allow law enforcement questioning about matters unrelated to the stop, we believe such analysis is not in keeping with our Supreme Court’s distinction of Mena in Smith. 286 Kan. at 402-03.
Returning to our facts, Cocking initially stopped the van when he noticed O’Kelly failed to signal two different times when changing lanes. The parties do not dispute that a traffic infraction provides an objectively valid reason to effectuate a stop. Moore, 283 Kan. at 350. After the stop, Cocking asked O’Kelly to step out of the vehicle. Kansas courts have recognized that a law enforcement officer may, even without suspicion of additional crimes, order a driver to exit a vehicle when the vehicle is lawfully stopped for a traffic violation. State v. Schneider, 32 Kan. App. 2d 258, 263, 80 P.3d 1184 (2003); see Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 330 (1977).
[228]*228When Cocking and O’Kelly walked to the rear of the van, Cocking asked O’Kelly whether the information on his driver’s license was correct. Cocking also asked O’Kelly: (1) where he was traveling from; (2) how long he had been in Phoenix; and (3) what he was doing in Phoenix. After O’Kelly informed Cocking that Morlock was his father and the person who rented the van, Cocking asked Morlock to produce the rental agreement. Cocking also asked Morlock: (1) where he was going and coming from; (2) how long he had been in Phoenix; (3) why he went to Phoenix; (4) why he rented the vehicle from Tucson when he was visiting Phoenix; and (5) why he flew to Phoenix but was driving back. Cocking then took both driver’s licenses and the rental agreement to his patrol vehicle.
We are persuaded by the substantial legal authority from other jurisdictions that Cocking was permitted to ask O’Kelly where he was traveling from. This routine question was reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop, and the inquiry did not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of tire stop. Although the question was not directly related to the original reason for the stop, i.e., failing to signal when changing lanes, the question allowed Cocking to determine if O’Kelly was on the proper course, and the question did not unreasonably delay O’Kelly or infringe upon his rights.
However, we disagree with the State that Cocking was permitted to ask O’Kelly how long he had been in Phoenix and what he was doing there. We acknowledge that similar questioning has been upheld by courts in other jurisdictions. However, we conclude these were not routine questions about O’Kelly’s travel plans, and the questions were not reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop. Instead, the questions were designed to allow Cocking to probe into O’Kelly’s personal business in the hope of uncovering suspicious activity.
Such an intrusion cannot be justified by reasoning that the motorist is not legally obligated to answer the questions. This analysis blurs the distinction between a voluntary encounter and a traffic stop, which is an investigatory detention. In a voluntary encounter, a law enforcement officer may approach an individual and ask questions without constituting a seizure provided the individual is [229]*229free to leave, but the officer cannot force the individual to answer. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 11 S. Ct. 2382 (1991); McKeown, 249 Kan. at 509. However, a traffic stop constitutes a seizure, and the motorist is not free to leave while he or she is being temporarily detained and questioned. The motorist is not allowed to pick and choose which questions must be answered. Until the law enforcement officer conveys to the motorist that he or she is free to refuse the requests or otherwise end the encounter, the motorist is expected to cooperate with the investigation and to answer all questions posed by the law enforcement officer. This is why it is essential that law enforcement questioning during a traffic stop be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the initial interference.
Once O’Kelly indicated to Cocking that his father had rented the van, it was reasonable for Cocking to approach Morlock and ask for information. Cocking was certainly entitled to ask Morlock to produce the rental agreement, as this document established that Morlock was authorized to possess the van in lieu of a vehicle registration. While Morlock was looking for the rental agreement, Cocking asked him where he was going and coming from. Morlock said he was coming from Phoenix to Kansas City. When Cocking determined that the vehicle was rented from Tucson and not from Phoenix, Cocking asked Morlock about this discrepancy.
We conclude that these routine questions were reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop, and the questions did not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of the stop. Cocking asked the initial question about where Morlock was going and coming from while Morlock was looking for the rental agreement, so the question caused no additional delay. When Cocking examined the rental agreement and discovered the van was rented from Tucson and not from Phoenix, Cocking was entitled to ask a follow-up question about the discrepancy.
However, we conclude that Cocking had no authority to ask Morlock how long he had been in Phoenix, why he went to Phoenix, and why he flew to Phoenix but was driving back. We do not believe these were routine questions about Morlock’s travel plans, especially in light of the fact that Morlock was the passenger and [230]*230not the driver of tire vehicle. Although the questions did not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of the stop, we find that the questions were not reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop and were designed solely to uncover suspicious activity.
In summary, under the circumstances of this case, some of Cocking’s routine questions of Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans were reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop, and the inquiries did not unreasonably alter die nature or the duration of the stop. However, some of the questions were improper. Specifically, Cocking had no authority to ask O’Kelly how long he had been in Phoenix and what he was doing in there. Cocking also had no authority to ask Morlock how long he had been in Phoenix, why he went to Phoenix, and why he flew to Phoenix but was driving back. We conclude these questions were not reasonably related in scope to the traffic infraction which justified the stop in the first place.
Warrant check on passenger
Morlock also claims that Cocking violated his constitutional rights by seizing his driver’s license and running a warrant check without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Morlock claims that Cocking’s action exceeded the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop and subjected Morlock to an unlawful detention.
The reasonable scope of a law enforcement officei'’s investigation during a routine traffic stop differs somewhat as it relates to the driver of the vehicle as opposed to the passengers. While a law enforcement officer may demand that the driver produce his or her driver’s license and vehicle registration in order to run a warrant check on the driver, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that the seizure of a passenger for identification and a records check constitutes an unreasonable detention, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Damm, 246 Kan. 220, 224-25, 787 P.2d 1185 (1990).
In Damm, a law enforcement officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle because of defective taillights. The officer gathered the driver’s licenses from the defendant and his two passengers and returned to the patrol car to perform a routine records check. The [231]*231officer discovered an outstanding warrant on one of the passengers, who was then arrested and placed in the patrol car. The officer then searched the defendant’s vehicle incident to the passenger’s arrest. After discovering drug paraphernalia and cocaine in the vehicle, all three occupants were arrested for drug possession. The district court suppressed the evidence and discharged the defendant.
On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court found that the law enforcement officer had no reasonable suspicion drat there were outstanding warrants for the passengers. The court held the seizure exceeded the reasonable scope and duration of the traffic stop when, in the absence of any reasonable suspicion, the passengers’ licenses were taken and their records were checked. 246 Kan. at 225. As the court explained:
“While [the defendant] was properly stopped and checked for the defective taillights, it was improper to seize him for the amount of time it took to run a check on every passenger in the car with him. An individual is ‘seized’ when an officer restrains his freedom, even if the detention is brief and falls short of arrest. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit unreasonable seizures as well as searches. [Citations omitted.] The scope and duration of a seizure must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation proper. [Citation omitted.] Otherwise, the driver of a carload of people on the way to work, the driver of a vanload of people on the way to a ball game, or the driver of an intercity bus loaded with passengers, when stopped for a defective taillight, could be detained for an inordinate amount of time while the officer runs record checks on every passenger aboard.” 246 Kan. at 224.
Cases from other states are in accord with the holding in Damm. See St. George v. State, 197 S.W.3d 806, 822-23 (Tex. App. 2006) (warrant check on passenger is not routine and necessary part of traffic stop); State v. Johnson, 805 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah 1991) (detention of passenger to run warrant check was not justified by articulable suspicion of crime and violated passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights). But see People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222, 237, 886 N.E.2d 947 (2008) (running warrant check on passenger in car stopped for making illegal turn did not violate Fourth Amendment); State v. Rubio, 136 P.3d 1022, 1028-29 (N.M. App. 2006) (officer’s request for identification from passenger who was' owner [232]*232of vehicle and subsequent computer check based on identification were lawful).
In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005), a state trooper stopped the respondent for speeding. When the trooper radioed the dispatcher to report the stop, a second trooper overheard the transmission and drove to tire scene with a narcotics-detection dog. While the first trooper was writing a warning ticket, the second trooper walked the dog around the car, and the dog alerted at the trunk. The troopers searched the trunk and found marijuana. The entire incident lasted less than 10 minutes. The Illinois Supreme Court suppressed the evidence and held, in part, that the use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation.
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Court noted that the initial seizure was lawful and the duration of the stop was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop. 543 U.S. at 407-08. The court held that the intrusion on the respondent’s privacy expectations caused by the dog sniff did not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement. 543 U.S. at 409.
We do not believe the holding in Caballes diminishes the precedent of Damm. The facts of the two cases are clearly distinguishable. In Caballes, there was no evidence that the drug sniff extended the duration of the traffic stop at all, but here it is evident that the warrant check on Morlock extended the duration of the traffic stop to at least some degree. Furthermore, Morlock is not arguing that the warrant check infringed upon his privacy interest, which was the focus of the court’s decision in Caballes. The majority decision in Caballes did not discuss Terry or the scope of a Terry stop. As a result, our Supreme Court has been explicit that Caballes is to be read narrowly in Kansas, and that it has no general application to Terry stops in Kansas. Smith, 286 Kan. at 419.
Returning to our facts, even if Cocking violated no rights by questioning Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans, Cooking’s investigation went off course when he seized Morlock’s driver’s license and returned to his patrol vehicle to run a warrant check'not only on O’Kelly, the driver, but on Morlock as well. In [233]*233Damm, the Kansas Supreme Court makes it clear that during a routine traffic stop, a law enforcement officer may not request a passenger’s driver’s license and run a warrant check on the passenger in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It appears that neither party cited Damm in the district court, and the district court did not analyze the holding of Damm in rendering its decision on the motion to suppress the evidence.
During the hearing on the motion to suppress, Cocking never explained why he ran a warrant check on Morlock, the passenger, during the course of his investigation. Cocking testified that at the time he requested Morlock’s driver’s license to run the warrant check, he was somewhat suspicious about O’Kelly’s nervousness, the one-way car rental and the short stay in Arizona, and the discrepancies in the information he received about Morlock’s travel plans. Cocking also thought the amount of luggage was suspicious, but this was after he had already seized Morlock’s driver’s license to run the warrant check. Other than those factors, Cocking admitted that he had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity other than O’Kelly’s failure to signal when changing lanes. In fact, during cross-examination, Cocking acknowledged that he had to let Morlock and O’Kelly go when he handed back the ticket, and he could not detain them to search the van without their consent.
The State argues on appeal, as the district court found, that Cocking articulated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to continue the investigation after the purpose of the traffic stop was completed. In DeMarco, the Kansas Supreme Court, quoting the United States Supreme Court, defined reasonable suspicion as “ ‘ “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. [Citation omitted.] Something more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch must be articulated.” 263 Kan. at 735. Nervousness alone is not sufficient to justify further detention; however, in combination with other suspicious circumstances, it might contribute to a finding of articulable suspicion. 263 Kan. at 737. Furthermore, the use of a rental car for a short-term trip has been identified as a factor supporting reasonable suspicion. Moore, 283 Kan. at 355; DeMarco, 263 Kan. at 735-41. Also, discrepancies in travel plans have been used as objective [234]*234reasonable suspicion factors in some cases. Moore, 283 Kan. at 355; DeMarco, 263 Kan. at 739. As we have concluded, however, much of the information Cocking received from Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans was based upon questioning outside the scope of the traffic stop.
Despite the presence of some factors supporting reasonable suspicion, other factors did not support any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on Morlock’s part. Cocking had no reason to believe there might be an outstanding warrant for Morlock. Cocking had not been advised by dispatch that the van was suspected of transporting drugs. Cocking did not recognize Morlock from any previous contact, nor did he have any personal knowledge of him. Cocking had not observed the van stop at any location that was known for illegal drug activity.
Cocking testified he never observed any drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, or alcohol containers inside the van. Cocking also testified he never smelled an odor of alcohol or marijuana, nor did he smell any air freshener, fabric softener, coffee grounds, or anything else that could mask the odor of drugs. Morlock did not seem impaired, and he did not provide any statements to Cocking which would give rise to the suspicion of criminal activity. For the most part, the information Cocking received from Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans was consistent. As for tire amount of luggage, four bags for two passengers traveling from Kansas City to Arizona and back does not seem that unusual.
Basically, Cocking had a rental van from Arizona with a nervous 16-year-old driver. Cocking may have had a hunch that Morlock and O’Kelly were up to something, which later proved to be correct, but there was simply no particularized and objective evidence to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Although Cooking’s narcotics-detection dog was in tire back of his patrol vehicle, Cocldng’s suspicion never reached the point that Cocking employed the trained animal to sniff for tire presence of drugs. Instead, Cocking ultimately asked Morlock for his consent to search the van.
Based upon tire totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Cocking lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time [235]*235Cocking requested Morlock’s driver’s license to run a warrant check. Thus, Cooking’s action in this regard unreasonably extended the scope and duration of the traffic stop and violated Morlock’s constitutional rights pursuant to Darnm.
Did consent remove the taint?
Ultimately, Morlock consented to Cooking’s search of die van which led to the discovery of the marijuana. On appeal, Morlock claims that his consent was not voluntary because he was subjected to an unlawful detention at the time the consent was given. The State contends that after Cocking returned the documents to Morlock, the traffic stop ended and Morlock consented to additional questioning, relying on State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007).
Thompson holds that an initial traffic stop can subsequently become a consensual encounter if, under the totality of the circumstances, the law enforcement officer’s conduct conveys to a reasonable person that he or she is free to refuse the requests or otherwise end the encounter. 284 Kan. 763, Syl. ¶ 9. However, Thompson is distinguishable from the present case because at the point of requesting consent in Thompson, there had been no “taint” of the encounter. Here, as we have concluded, Morlock’s constitutional rights were violated when Cocking asked impermissible questions about travel plans and when he ran the warrant check on Morlock.
Once the encounter is tainted, the focus must be on whether the consent purged the taint. State v. Grace, 28 Kan. App. 2d 452, Syl. ¶¶ 6-8, 17 P.3d 951, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1039 (2001). The analysis requires consideration of the proximity in time of the violation and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the law enforcement officer’s misconduct. Most importantly, the State must establish a break in the causal connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained. 28 Kan. App. 2d at 460; see State v. Rice, 264 Kan. 232, 241-44, 955 P.2d 1258 (1998).
Here, there was a close proximity in time between the constitutional violation and Morlock’s consent. There were no interven[236]*236ing circumstances present to purge the taint of the constitutional violation. For instance, if the warrant check had uncovered an outstanding warrant for Morlock, Cocking could have arrested Morlock on the warrant even though the information was illegally obtained. See State v. Martin, 285 Kan. 994, 1005, 179 P.3d 457 (2008). However, these are not the facts of this case.
Furthermore, there was a direct causal connection between Cocking’s illegal actions and evidence ultimately seized from the van. Cocking testified that by the time of his request for consent, he was suspicious of drug trafficking based in large part on the information he received about the travel plans. As we have concluded, much of the information Cocking received from Morlock and O’Kelly about their travel plans was based upon questioning outside the scope of the traffic stop. The State failed to establish a break in the causal connection between Cocking’s illegal actions and the evidence thereby obtained. In fact, the district court expressly found that the encounter between Cocking and Morlock was continuous and never became voluntary.
For these reasons, we conclude there is no need to analyze the voluntariness of Morlock’s consent to additional questioning and his consent to the search of the van, employing Thompson. We conclude that Cocking violated Morlock’s constitutional rights when Cocking asked impermissible questions about travel plans and, more importantly, when he ran the warrant check on Morlock. We further conclude that the State failed to establish that Morlock’s consent purged the taint of the constitutional violations. Thus, the district court erred in denying Morlock’s motion to suppress the evidence. Because the evidence establishing Morlock’s guilt is suppressed, Morlock’s convictions are set aside, and he is discharged from further proceedings.
Reversed.