410, 117 S.Ct. at 884. The Court explained that passengers pose as great a danger to police officers as do drivers during traffic stops. Id., 519 U.S. at 414, 117 S.Ct. at 886. The Court’s approval, in Maryland, of “officer control of passengers in a traffic stop stems from the ‘legitimate and weighty’ need for officer safety.” United States v. Clark, 337 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 333 (1977)). Further, the Court has stated that it is “reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardy his safety.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 258, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2407, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Recently, in Arizona v. Johnson, a passenger,
holding that a passenger has standing to challenge a stops constitutionality because the passenger is seized from the moment a car is stopped holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous holding a nonowner passenger claiming no interest in crack seized from the car had no standing to challenge the search holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding that a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop