court’s ruling on the motion. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Standing {9} Because this case involves the search of a vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger, standing is presented as a threshold question. See generally State v. Van Dang, 2005-NMSC-033, ¶7, 138 N.M. 408, 120 P.3d 830 (characterizing standing as a threshold issue). The district court concluded that Defendant had “standing to file his [m]otion to [s]uppress,” but did not elaborate. An overview of the applicable principles of law is helpful. {10} Generally speaking, passengers lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicles or their contents and, as a consequence, passengers typically lack standing to challenge automobile searches. See, e.g., State v. Waggoner, 97 N.M. 73, 75, 636 P.2d 892, 894 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). A showing of special circumstances, such as
holding that squatter had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no fourth amendment standing to challenge search of abandoned structure holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop