detain Sugar and Stark beyond what was strictly necessary to effectuate the traffic stop. Once Crivello checked Sugar’s license, examined the note authorizing Stark to use the RV and the registration, he had all the information he needed to issue the citation for the traffic violation. Rather than allowi defendant “was nowhere near the pick-up truck at the time it was stopped, detained and searched, and there is no evidence that [he] had any proprietary or possessory interest either in the vehicle, or its contents, or any right to exclude others from the vehicle, it would be difficult to posit a clearer failure to demonstrate any legitimate expectation of privacy on the part of the defendant”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110, 113-14 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The government does not dispute that Sugar,
holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car holding that a car passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his closed plastic shopping bag found on the floor of the car holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car