as a positive statement of those who could complain. Kapler v. State, 194 Md. 580, 71 A.2d 860. In all of these cases the words “lawfully occupies” are intended to be of the same nature and kind as the others used, and contemplate an occupation of some character which is connected with the property or the premises by some lawful means.... The occupancy must have some relation to the property or premises searched in order to enable such “occupants” to claim that their possessions have been unlawfully seized. It is not sufficient that they are merely there when the search is made. They must be there with some show of right to be in possession of the premises or property. Id. at 64, 75 A.2d at 330 (emphasis in original); see also Carter v. State, 236 Md. 450, 453, 204 A.2d 322, 323 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Ferguson v. State, 236 Md. 148, 158-59, 202
holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search holding a nonowner passenger claiming no interest in crack seized from the car had no standing to challenge the 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 driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search 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