Elizah Clark appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to a traffic stop. He argues that because the officer did not have probable cause for the stop, the subsequent search and seizure of evidence were illegal.

*827 Our review of the record and the parties’ arguments convinces us that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. United States v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999). The officer testified that he stopped Clark’s vehicle on the basis of a perceived traffic violation, i.e., improper windshield tinting, creating sufficient probable cause to support the initial stop. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

Moreover, Clark does not contend that his continued detention following the determination that he was operating the vehicle without a driver’s license was improper. Nor does he dispute the district court’s finding that he consented to a search of his vehicle. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.