other situations or “exceptions” that are more akin to the situation here: A recognized exception to this rule applies where enforcement of a challenged restriction would adversely affect the rights of non-parties,. and there is no effective avenue for them to preserve their rights themselves. Cf. Stall v. State, 570 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1990) (“[assuming that the petitioners [who were alleged vendors of obscene materials] have vicarious standing to raise their customers’ privacy interest”). This principle has been extended' to apply where it is the petitioners who “stand to lose from the outcome of this case and yet they have no other effective avenue for preserving their rights” than by raising the constitutional rights of non-parties. Jones v. State, 640 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 76 n.3 (emphasis added). Powell, 497
holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury holding that defendant had no standing to assert his wifes privacy right pertaining to medical records introduced into evidence at trial recognizing petitioners vicarious standing to5 assert the claimed privacy rights of the underaged girls with whom they had sexual intercourse holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party