constitutional maxim that the reasonableness of the officer’s actions is determined by objectively evaluating the particular facts of the stop within the context of all the attendant circumstances. State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 23, 35, 138 N.M. 414, 120 P.3d 836. “The federal and New Mexico Constitutions are not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only unreasonable ones.” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶29. Although Defendant would not have standing to object to an unlawful seizure from another person because it violated the other person’s rights, he does have standing to object to a seizure “from a third person” which occurred “as a result of the exploitation of Defendant’s own unlawful ... detention.” State v. Hernandez, 1997-NMCA-006, ¶17, 122 N.M. 809, 932 P.2d 499 (1996) (<HOLDING>). {17} A court should consider both the length
holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle 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 holding that because the government was unable to prove that a truck in which illegal drugs were discovered was stolen the driver and passenger had standing to challenge the search 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