revealed $2,000 in cash which in turn “justified a brief period of additional questioning”). Second, Crivello reports that Stark’s hands and voice were trembling. While Stark’s apparent nervousness and loquaciousness are factors which Crivello, a trained officer, properly considered, without more, they cannot justify Crivello’s decision to detain the defendants. Conceding that many people get nervous when stopped by the police, Crivello emphasized that it was unusual for a passenger to be nervous. Here, however, Crivello was standing next to the passenger (not the driver) and requested both licenses. Also, the weight to be given to this factor is diminished by the fact that the driver was not nervous. Next, Crivello claimed that Stark tried to hide the CB antenna under h Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37, 40-41
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 holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car 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 driver did not have named insureds implied permission to use car where father gave the son permission to use car and the son lent the ear to someone else