S.D.N.Y.: Brendlin standing of a passenger to challenge a stop doesn’t translate into standing to also challenge the search

Brendlin standing of a passenger to challenge a stop doesn’t translate into standing to also challenge the search. Defendant still has to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. “The Defendant attempts to establish standing by arguing that, because he was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the trooper stopped the Vehicle, he has standing to challenge the seizure of evidence that followed from his detention. In making this argument, Defendant improperly relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brendlin v. California, which establishes the narrow principle that a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police is deemed ‘seized’ under the Fourth Amendment and has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the detention. 551 US 249 (2007). Brendlin does not stand for the proposition that merely by virtue of such a seizure, rather than a showing of a legitimate expectation of privacy, a non-owner driver is entitled to challenge the search of an automobile.” United States v. Shuai Sun, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020).