matter is irrelevant. Couch had valid consent to search Cole’s vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. Affirmed. VAUGHT, C.J, and KINARD, J., agree. 1 . Testifying on Cole's behalf, Brumble told the trial court that he informed Couch that he could not give consent because Cole was the owner of the car. Cole testified on her own behalf and stated that Couch never asked for consent to search. The trial court found both Brumble and Cole not credible. 2 . This holding is consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions. See United States v. Eldridge, 984 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1993); Ledda v. State, 564 A.2d 1125 (Del.1989); People v. Sanchez, 292 Ill.App.3d 763, 226 Ill.Dec. 737, 686 N.E.2d 367 (1997). But see Johnson v. State, 905 P.2d 818 (Okla.Crim.App.1995)
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 after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile holding that belton permits the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile even when the defendant is arrested outside as long as the officer made initial contact while the defendant was inside the automobile holding a driver had standing to suppress the drugs found in the underwear of the drivers passenger during an unreasonably prolonged roadside stop of both driver and passenger