of whether the disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). We turn first to the stop. Elmore has shown no possessory interest in the Cadillac whatsoever. Even if his having supplied the money for the purchase of the car were enough to establish ownership— an issue we need not resolve here — it is undisputed that Elmore was not in the ear when Detective Robinson stopped it, nor was he anywhere in the vicinity of the car, nor had he ever even seen the car. The stop of the car did not entail any interference with Elmore’s possessory interest, let alone a meaningful one. Cf. United States v. Powell, 929 F.2d 1190 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) Because Elmore can show no interference with
holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity holding that vehicle owner not present in the vehicle when it was stopped had not suffered interference with his possessory interest and could not challenge the constitutionality of the stop holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle