United States v. Dylan Davis, 943 F.3d 1129

At ~9:17 p.m. on Nov. 29, 2017, Iowa State Patrol Sgt. Kober stopped an SUV for speeding; driver Noah Pope and passenger Dylan Davis (initially asleep) were in the vehicle.
The vehicle was a rental; neither occupant was listed on the rental agreement and the renter was absent. Pope appeared nervous, and Sgt. Kober saw small baggies in Pope’s backpack, one of which Pope seemed to try to hide.
A long-gun case contained a loaded pistol; Davis identified it as a nine-millimeter and consented to its inspection. Sgt. Kober took the gun and the occupants’ identification to his cruiser and contacted dispatch and the rental company (delays totaled minutes).
Sgt. Kober told a ride-along he would have the rental company tow the car for an inventory search; after issuing a speeding ticket he had the occupants exit and began an inventory search, discovering drug paraphernalia and then methamphetamine and marijuana.
A federal grand jury indicted Davis on drug- and firearm-related counts; Davis moved to suppress evidence. The district court granted suppression, holding the stop was unreasonably extended and the inventory search was pretextual. The government appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding Davis lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental vehicle because the stop’s extension was justified by reasonable suspicion (noting the loaded pistol as a significant factor), so Davis lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing: Does Davis have a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge the vehicle search?	Davis: Although a passenger, he was unreasonably seized when the stop was extended, so he may challenge the search.	Gov’t: Davis had neither property nor possessory interest as a passenger and thus lacks standing.	Reversed: Davis lacks standing because the stop was not unreasonably extended; passenger without such interest cannot challenge vehicle search.
Extension of traffic stop: Was the stop unlawfully extended (reasonable suspicion)?	Davis: District court found extension without reasonable suspicion, making the seizure unconstitutional.	Gov’t: Officer had reasonable suspicion based on Pope’s furtive behavior, nervousness, rental-owner absence, and the loaded pistol.	Held for Gov’t: Extension was justified by reasonable suspicion, especially after discovery of the loaded pistol.
Probable cause to search before inventory: Did officer have probable cause to search the SUV?	Davis: No probable cause existed to justify a warrantless search before the inventory.	Gov’t: The loaded pistol and other indicators supplied probable cause to search or arrest.	Not reached: Court resolved case on standing/reasonable-suspicion grounds but noted the pistol could have supported probable cause.

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (passenger lacking property or possessory interest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger is seized during a traffic stop and may challenge seizure)
Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal, not vicarious)
United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2008) (extension of stop without indicators of criminal activity was unlawful)
United States v. Riley, 684 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2012) (nervous behavior and suspicious travel plans can support reasonable suspicion to extend a stop)
United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2007) (absence of the vehicle’s owner may contribute to reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding a weapon in a vehicle can support probable cause to search)