Sup Ct, says car passengers have 4A standing

US Supreme Court holds that a passenger as well as a driver has standing to challenge the legality of a police officer's decision to stop a car. All in a unanimous decision. All this just as I finish my Search and Seizure -- Automobiles outline. No worries, we aren't responsible for this new decision on this year's bar exam. Here's the story . . .

Want it in MBE Format? Here 'tis .. .

Bruce E. Brendlin, was a passenger in a car that was stopped by a deputy sheriff in ONOUDIDN, CA. The deputy soon ascertained that Mr. Brendlin was an ex-convict who was wanted for violating his parole. An ensuing search of the driver, the car and Mr. Brendlin turned up methamphetamine supplies. Mr. Brendlin pleaded guilty to a drug charge and drew a four-year prison sentence. But he continued to appeal on the issue of whether the evidence of drugs found on him resulted from an illegal search and should have been suppressed because of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The prosecution argues that Brendlin lacks standing to bring forward such a motion. How should the judge rule on the appeal?

A. affirm, as passenger Brendlin was not seized by the search.
B. affirm, unless the police had probable cause to search the passenger.
C. affirm, a balancing of society's interest in eradicating methamphetamines outweighs the privacy interest of a passenger in an automobile.
D. reverse, when a officer makes stop he seizes not only driver of car, but also car and every person in car.