the Court reaffirmed that police may order a driver or passenger out of the car during a lawful traffic stop. Id. at 786 (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997)). “To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however,” it held, “just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.” Id. at 784. The only information that Berio had here was that this was a narcotics investigation and the passenger seemed nervous. That surely was not enough to suggest that the defendants were carrying a weapon. Unlike in Ogde Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Flynn, 309 F.3d 736, 738
holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his wallet after discarding it to avoid its discovery right before arrest holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle