What is the staus of the law for consent search requests after the reason for the traffic stop has been completed? Seems like I remeber reading a case that held a consent search was not valid once the reason for the stop was accomplished ie. the traffic ticket had been written and signed, then consent was requested.
I have not been able to put my finger on that case. Was there a bright line rule or is the law still that the length of the detention after the ticket is issued and the reasonableness thereof is dependant upon the totality of the circumstances(Leach v. State, etc.)?
Lastly, Trooper gets passenger out of car and sees a "bulge" in her pocket and asks what it is....her reply, cigarettes. Then he says " Take them out and let me see them", of course there is marihuanna in the pack. All this occurs after the ticket has been written and a discussion with the driver about whether he will consent to a search of the car(which he does not agree to do until the 4th time he is asked. Each prior time he says he really wants to be on his way). Does his demand that she remove the pack and show him as opposed to asking to see it cause me problems?

You may be mis-remembering Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 115-18, 119 S.Ct. 484, 486-88 (1998). Knowles held that a search incident to arrest was no good where the ticket had been written.

US v. Brigham 2004 WL 1854552 (Aug. 19, 2004)

lays out 2 prong test for reasonableness and legality of a traffic stop / temporary investigative detention.

Once the traffic stop is completed further detention requires justification (reasonable suspicion/probable cause). Slight extensions can be defended. See e.g. Lipscomb v. State, 2005 Tex. App. Lexis 7119 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005)(ndfp); United States v. Powell, 137 Fed. Appx. 701, 709 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jordan, 135 Fed. Appx. 783 (5th Cir. 2005); Robledo v. State, 2005 Tex. App. Lexis 7691 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2005)

Start out asking: Can we articulate why the stop took longer than a regular traffic stop? Specifically, what about this contact alerted the officer through his training that something unusual occurred such that extended detention was necessary?

If the 'Why' sounds like BS, you're in trouble. The longer you keep them on the side of the road, the more detail and understanding you're going to need. There isn't a bright line for how long is too long. Instead, the stop needs to make sense and be reasonable given the information and observations available to the officer at the time of the extension.

The best suspicions I've seen are developed while the officer is waiting for a return on the warrant check. Officers will often strike up conversations while waiting on dispatch. Those conversations can be used to develop facts which give rise to suspicion which legitimizes further detention. BUT, detention can only last as long as reasonably necessary to resolve that suspicion.

Once you've got some suspicion, you can't sit there and fish or noodle for bottles of sherry and rubber hoses. The continued detention only lasts as long as it takes to reasonably resolve the arisen implication of criminal activity.

Thanks for all the help and cites, I will read them shortly....your opinions point out my problem. As far as I can tell, there was no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. The consent to search questions have almost become routine and I don't know that I have a problem with it, but the timing on this case after the citation had been written caused me concern. Some of our troopers have started requesting the full criminal histories (in addition to active warrants, etc.) of the person stopped in all instances. I suppose looking for those with a history of drug offenses.
Do you see a problem with the second part of the issue.....the "demand" to see what was in the pocket rather than a "request" to do so?
This may be an interesting decision as the consent to search question was asked mutiple times before a firm affirmative answer was given. Is the consent voluntary when the defendant has said he did not really want the officer to search 3-4 times, then eventually says OK.
I understand these are fact specific issues and require looking at all the circumstances and the officers justification for his actions.
Further justification for a requirement that Constitutional County Court Jugdes be Attorneys, in my opinion!

You're talking about a "Davis issue". Davis v. State of Texas. There are many cases now interpreting that case. I don't have the cite here in front of me at the house, but will post the cite at work tomorrow.