had reason to continue investigation regarding the vehicle’s status since Defendant claimed it belonged to a friend, the vehicle had Mexican license plates, and the agent had not yet seen the vehicle’s registration or Defendant’s driver’s license. Surely the agent had lawful authority, if not good reason, to investigate further into these circumstances. Cf. United States v. Sukiz-Grado, 22 F.3d 1006, 1009 (10th Cir.1994) (referral to secondary for a dog sniff held lawful following agent’s having noticed a temporary license tag, the driver having said that the car belonged to a friend, the agent having noticed the driver’s nervousness, and after the driver gave permission at primary to a dog sniff of the exterior of the car); United States v. Lopez, 777 F.2d 543, 548 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Diaz-AlbeHini 772 F.2d at 655 (lawful to
holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle holding that during a routine traffic stop it is reasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing the driver in a patrol car if placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation prevents officers or the driver from being subjected to a dangerous condition and placing the driver in the patrol car is the least intrusive means to avoid the dangerous condition holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver