and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing * * * the evidence.” State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn.1999) (citation omitted). 1. Standing The state asserts that, as “merely a party guest,” Couillard does not have standing to contest the search of the residence, and the district court agreed. The district court determined, however, that Couillard has standing to contest the search of his backpack located in the residence. We agree that Couillard has standing to challenge the search of his backpack, but hold that the district court erred by allowing Couillard’s challenge to the search of his backpack to be based on a challenge to the validity of the warrant to search the residence. See United States v. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228, 231 (7th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). The issue, therefore, is whether Couillard’s
holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding a nonowner passenger claiming no interest in crack seized from the car had no standing to challenge the search holding that owner of a chattel seized during an illegal search of a car owned by a third party has standing to object to the seizure but no standing to object to the search holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause