State v. Gilbert, 254 P.3d 1271

Gilbert, a passenger in a parked car, was taken into custody after an outstanding arrest warrant for him was confirmed.
Police searched the vehicle incident to Gilbert's arrest and found methamphetamine paraphernalia and drugs in a Crown Royal bag and under the front seat.
The State conceded the search was unconstitutional, and the dispositive issue became whether a non-owning passenger may challenge the vehicle search.
The Court of Appeals held Gilbert had standing under Brendlin v. California to challenge the search, reversing and suppressing the evidence.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and held Gilbert lacked standing under the Fourth Amendment, proceeding to discuss Brendlin’s scope and its applicability.
The Court concluded that, under Rakas v. Illinois, a non-owner passenger has no Fourth Amendment interest in challenging a vehicle search conducted on a third party's premises; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Gilbert have standing to challenge the vehicle search?	Gilbert argues Brendlin extends standing to nonowners.	State contends only Brendlin applies to traffic stops, not post-search vehicle searches by nonowners.	Gilbert lacks standing; dismissal affirmed.
Does Brendlin extend standing to challenge a vehicle interior search when the passenger has no ownership interest?	Brendlin should extend standing to nonowners.	Brendlin does not extend to challenge interior searches for nonowners.	Brendlin does not extend standing; vehicle search invalidity cannot be challenged by Gilbert.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (limits Brendlin to seizure during traffic stops; does not extend to third-party vehicle searches)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (personal Fourth Amendment rights; no standing for nonowners in third-party searches)
State v. Worrell, 233 Kan. 968 (1983) (privacy rights and standing; no standing without expectation of privacy)
State v. Sumner, 210 Kan. 802 (1972) (no standing where no proprietary or possessory interest in premises)
State v. Epperson, 237 Kan. 707 (1985) (passenger generally has no standing to challenge search of automobile)
State v. Roberts, 210 Kan. 786 (1972) (passenger without interest lacks standing to challenge car search)
State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 (1972) (noninterest in premises means no standing to challenge searches)
State v. Grimmett & Smith, 208 Kan. 324 (1971) (no standing without proprietary or possessory interest)