OPINION
{1} Jeuang Van Dang (Defendant) was stopped on Interstate 40 by a New Mexico State Police Officer for driving eighty-four miles per hour, nine miles per hour over the speed limit. When asked for his driver’s license, proof of insurance and registration, Defendant produced his California driver’s license and a vehicle rental contract. Although the rental contract is not part of the record, it is undisputed that the rental contract did not list Defendant as the renter or as an authorized driver. For approximately twenty-five minutes following the stop, the officer reviewed the rental contract, questioned Defendant and his passenger regarding their travel plans, contacted dispatch for a wants and warrants check, issued a speeding citation and had dispatch make efforts to contact the rental company to investigate whether the vehicle was stolen. Before hearing back from dispatch that they were unable to make contact with the rental company, the officer asked Defendant and the passenger specific questions about whether they were in possession of any drugs. After both denied being in possession of drugs, the officer asked them if he could search the vehicle. Both consented and Defendant opened the trunk compartment with a remote key. The officer searched luggage located in the trunk, then pulled back the carpeting on the side of the trunk and found an estimated 20,000 small pills later identified as ecstasy.
{2} Defendant was charged with possession of a methamphetamine substance with intent to distribute, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-22(A)(2) (1990), and with conspiracy, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-2 (1979). Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unconstitutional because the scope and duration of his detention were unlawful and that his consent was tainted by this illegality. At the evidentiary hearing, the officer testified Defendant told him that Defendant’s uncle had rented the vehicle and knew Defendant was driving the vehicle. On direct examination, Defendant was asked whether he believed he had a legitimate right to be driving the rental vehicle and he answered yes. Defendant also responded yes when asked if he felt like he had a right to privacy in the ear and its contents. However, Defendant did not explain why he held such a belief, nor did he testify that his uncle had rented the vehicle and gave him permission to drive the vehicle. Defendant did not produce his uncle to testify regarding the rental of the vehicle and the circumstances of Defendant’s alleged permissive use. No other evidence was presented verifying the story Defendant gave to the officer at the scene of the stop.
{3} The district court judge denied the motion to suppress for two reasons. One, the judge found Defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle because Defendant failed to prove he had authority to be in possession of the vehicle he was driving at the time of the search. Two, the judge found the length of detention prior to the search of the vehicle was reasonable given the officer’s attempt to contact the rental car agency. A plea and disposition agreement was filed in which Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute and reserved his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress.
{4} On appeal, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Defendant may have lacked standing to contest the search of the vehicle because he may not have had a possessory or property interest in the vehicle, but concluded that he had standing to seek suppression of the drugs seized if the seizure was the fruit of an unlawful detention. State v. Dang,
{5} We granted the State’s Petition for Certiorari and reverse. By failing to demonstrate that he had permission from either the rental car agency or the renter to use the vehicle, Defendant failed to establish standing to challenge the search of the rental vehicle. While Defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of his own detention, we conclude that the twenty-five-minute detention was lawful because the officer had the right to detain Defendant pending his reasonable investigation of the circumstances surrounding what appeared to be an unauthorized use of a rental vehicle. The officer’s questioning about drugs was based on specific, articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant may have been transporting drugs. Consequently, the duration and scope of Defendant’s detention were reasonable under the circumstances. We hold the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress.
Defendant Lacks Standing to Challenge the Constitutionality of the Search
{6} The standard for reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress is “whether the law was correctly applied to the facts, viewing them in a manner most favorable to the prevailing party.” State v. Eli L.,
{7} The threshold question raised by the State is whether Defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the vehicle search. To establish standing, Defendant must demonstrate that he had a subjective expectation of privacy that society will recognize as reasonable. Id. ¶ 7. We must examine the entire record surrounding the arrest, search and seizure to determine whether Defendant proved a legitimate expectation of privacy. State v. Leyba,
{8} Defendant cites to Leyba and Soto as cases exemplifying when a person who is not the owner of the vehicle has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search of the vehicle. In Leyba, after receiving several tips that the defendant and two other individuals, Michael Lucero and Alex Trujillo, were selling heroin out of a motel room, the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Department set up a surveillance of the motel room, which included listening to the defendant’s conversations.
{9} In Soto, after the Carlsbad police located an Oldsmobile that matched the description of one observed in the vicinity around the time of a burglary, officers went to the workplace of the Oldsmobile’s owner, Vera Rodriguez, to seek her consent to search the vehicle.
{10} In both Leyba and Soto, the defendants were found to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search because the evidence adduced at the hearings demonstrated the defendants were regular, permissive users of the vehicles and exerted control over those vehicles and their contents. However, neither case involved a rental vehicle driven by an individual who was neither the renter nor listed on the rental contract as authorized to drive the vehicle. Perhaps more relevant to our analysis is United States v. Smith,
{11} By contrast, a defendant who was driving a rental vehicle without being either the renter or identified as an authorized user in the rental contract was held not to have standing in United States v. Muhammad,
{12} We agree that in a case involving a rental vehicle where the driver is neither the renter nor listed on the rental contract as an authorized driver, the burden is on the driver to present evidence of consent or permission from the lawful owner or renter to be in possession of the vehicle in order to establish standing to challenge a search of the vehicle. As in Muhammad, Defendant in this case neither called his uncle as a witness at the suppression hearing to verify he had granted Defendant permission, nor even made the claim that his uncle had authorized his operation of the vehicle. Having failed to make this threshold showing, Defendant fails to establish standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.
Defendant Was Not Unlawfully Detained
{13} Defendant next argues that he has standing to challenge the constitutionality of his detention, which he argues was unconstitutional both in duration and scope, making his consent involuntary and the search of the trunk unlawful. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant and held that although the extensive questioning of the Defendant and his passenger may have been related to whether the rental car was stolen, the officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the detention to inquire about drugs, and consequently Defendant’s consent was tainted. Dang,
{14} In determining whether there is reasonable suspicion for the detention and questioning about drugs, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court ruling. State v. Guzman,
{15} The Court of Appeals acknowledged, and we agree, that because Defendant’s name did not appear on the rental contract, the officer had a right to investigate whether the vehicle was stolen. Dang,
{16} The scope of the detention, and specifically whether the officer could then lawfully inquire about drugs, is a more difficult question. Important to our analysis is whether the training and experience of the officer enhanced his ability to derive and articulate particularized and objective indicia of criminal activity. See Guzman,
Conclusion
{17} Defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the vehicle because he failed to present any evidence establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental vehicle. While he has standing to challenge his own detention, the duration and scope of his detention were lawful in light of the circumstances of this case, so the evidence discovered in the trunk was not the fruit of an unlawful detention. We reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court.
{18} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. While the Court noted that as a general rule, an unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, it refused to adopt a bright-line test for such cases based solely on whether the driver of a rental vehicle is listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. Smith,