OPINION

Edward Lewis Whitlow was convicted of possession with intent to distribute less *685 than fifty kilograms of marijuana and five hundred grams or more of cocaine base, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to a seventy-six month term of imprisonment. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his rental car. We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm Whitlow’s conviction.

Whitlow first asserts that the district court erred in finding that he was detained in a valid traffic stop. We review the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the legal determinations de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). South Carolina Highway Patrolman Carl Long stopped Whitlow after clocking him driving fifty-two miles per hour in a sixty mile per hour zone on 1-85. Other cars were passing Whitlow on both sides. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the traffic stop was proper under S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-1560 (Law.Co-op. 1991), which prohibits driving so slowly as to impede traffic. *

Whitlow next contends that Long improperly questioned him about matters extraneous to the purpose of the traffic stop. The district court held that the questions were proper because Whitlow was, or would inevitably be, in violation of the terms of the rental car agreement. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the questions were proper. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989).

Finally, Whitlow challenges the district court’s finding that he gave consent to search his car. A search is consensual if a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer’s request to search and drive away. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 653 (4th Cir. 1996). The videotape of the encounter showed that Long had returned Whitlow’s license and rental agreement and had presented a warning ticket before seeking permission to search the car. The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings that Whitlow was no longer restrained and that he willingly granted permission for the search.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm Whitlow’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.