we hold that the evidence uncovered in the course of the stop is admissible if the police who issued the flyer possessed a reasonable suspicion justifying the stop Hensley 469 U.S. at 233, 105 S.Ct. 675. Hence, a Hensley challenge in this case would have compelled the granting of Petitioner motion to suppress because the state failed to prove that the officer who issued the flyer relied upon to detain Petitioner had reasonable suspicion to do so. Two Circuit Courts have interpreted Supreme Court precedents to support the proposition that all occupants of a vehicle have a right to challenge the illegality of the stop and/or detention. See United States v. Woodrum, 202 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.2000) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 138-39, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978))(<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Erwin, 875 F.2d
holding that each occupant of a car has a right to challenge the propriety of a traffic stop under the fourth amendment holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred holding search invalid under the fourth amendment when a physicallypresent occupant expressly objected to a search  notwithstanding the consent of a fellow occupant