IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Trooper O’Donnell testified that he was wearing a long-sleeve Under Armor shirt under his uniform, and the other occupants of the vehicle were also wearing warmer clothing that night. (Hr’g Tr. 15:12-16.) 2 . Trooper O’Donnell testified that the “three occupants in the car displayed signs of over-nervousness that you wouldn’t see for just a simple traffic violation, and it made [him] wonder what was going on within the interior of the car, whether there was further contraband that they didn’t want to be found, narcotics or guns, drugs, weapons, whatever it maybe.” (Hr'gTr. 16:11-20.) 3 . Standing to challenge the search is satisfied, as the Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle. See Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 251, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The Government bears the burden of
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 a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop holding a driver had standing to suppress the drugs found in the underwear of the drivers passenger during an unreasonably prolonged roadside stop of both driver and passenger holding aat a passenger is seized as well as ae driver and so may challenge ae constitutionality of ae stop holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling if ae petitioner demonstrates  1 that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and 2 that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filling quoting pace v diguglielmo 544 us 408 418 125 sct 1807 161 led2d 669 2005