without police permission,” the Supreme Court held that passengers in a traffic stop of a private vehicle have standing to challenge the initial stop, their own seizure, and any evidence derived from that seizure. The Tenth Circuit has clarified that Brendlin does not mean that passengers have standing to challenge every search of the vehicle in which they are riding, stating: a passenger was “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes and thus had standing to challenge the validity of the traffic stop at issue, Brendlin v. California, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2405, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007), though the passenger’s right to contest a subsequent search not of his or her person but the vehicle remains another question, see Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) (<HOLDING>). United States v. Cortez-Galaviz, 495 F.3d
holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding that petitioners who asserted neither a property interest nor a possessory interest in property searched or seized were not entitled to assert a constitutional challenge to the search holding a nonowner passenger claiming no interest in crack seized from the car had no standing to challenge the search holding that a passenger has standing to challenge a stops constitutionality because the passenger is seized from the moment a car is stopped 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