8-9, 88 S.Ct. 1868. 9 . See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 61 & n. 19 (discussing standing of passenger to challenge constitutionality of detention); United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court has not specifically held that a passenger, as distinguished from the driver, is seized at the moment of the stop but has recognized that, as a practical matter, any passengers are stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 412-14, 117 S.Ct. 882, 885-86, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997). 10 . Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3148, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) .Id. at 52, 99 S Ct. at 2641; see also Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184, 187-88, 124 S.Ct. at 2457, 2459 (distinguishing Texas statute invalidated in allas 1985, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. McGaughran, 25 Cal.3d 577,
holding taint from illegal detention attenuated by discovery of outstanding warrant where there was no evidence officer stopped appellant solely to request identity in order to run warrant check holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion holding that requests for identification of all occupants explanation of presence in area and warrant check was within reasonable scope of detention holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose holding warrant check lawful if detention not extended beyond time necessary to request license and registration and issue citation