in march of two thousand and fifteen a new mexico state trooper stopped a car hauler on the car hauler was a saturn vue that had been loaded from california and was destined to indianapolis the government's theory is that that car  the saturn vue was destined for our client abel cooper rubeus the new yorker the new mexico state trooper stopped the car holler for a problem with his license plate after giving a citation and checking all the bills of lading to ensure that the cars on the hauler were appropriately designated the trooper became suspicious of the the saturn few he became suspicious because the bills of lading for the saturn vue had the same phone number for the sender in the receiver he became suspicious because there was no license plate on the saturn vue or license plate referenced on the bill of lading however what was deemed oddities by the trial court those similar oddities were situated for other cars on that car holler however the trooper found the suspicious enough that he started to ask the car hauler driver to get into the vehicle the saturn view and find the license plate was not located in the saturn vue so the trooper starts to do some research as to the origination of this this vehicle and found that it was an register or expired registration at that point and his last owner resided i believe in illinois based on that and based on the fact that this was a perceived drug route the trooper asked the car holder for consent to search that saturn vue the truck court found there was reasonable suspicion enough to ask for that examination examination turned up approximately forty six pounds of methamphetamine saturn vue was delivered to mr covarrubias who then delivered the car to an address and then drove off in another vehicle and he had a key to the saturn vue in his pocket the found that there was no subjective or objective reasonable expectation of privacy in that view by our client mr coburn rubeus we believe that the findings of factual findings were clearly is erroneous because we believe respectfully th court ignored some of the other oddities or she's being that the trial court ignored this court's mandate in crowd or that based on the way that the car was packed even though there was submit the crowd or even acknowledges despite the secrecy of the organization that and the pact in the car that there was a subjective expectation of privacy as the other ject of expectation of privacy before and had no expectation that you would control functions in any way are you disputing any of those fund it well where i'm disputing it is in fact the phone absolutely yes i would agree but as to the objective expectation of privacy that the trial court it didn't the facts were different than what were before this court in crowd or in crowd or the i don't see why  crowder matters one way or the other question is not whether this is the same a script or the question is whether there's a legitimate expectation of privacy under the supreme court's standards and the judge said the district judge said not for the three reasons but i just ticked off and which appear to be uncontested judge i would respectfully agree with the findings in that those were factual  that was evidence before the district court however the way that they connected this car to our client throughout that both the suppression and that was destined for our client and a phone record showed that this client or expectation of privacy the object of expectation privacy can be found in the bill of lading in that there was not just kind of turning it over to the third party carrier we understand and we  acknowledge that in new shipping something with a third carrier does not relinquish our bailment relationship does not completely relinquish all expectations of privacy and that's exactly what mr cove rubeus was expecting in this situation and the government for the purpose of the suppression hearing consistently says no it wasn't his he didn't have standing he didn't have an expectation of privacy so when it comes to trial it is always that th that vehicle for the purposes of conviction they want to attribute everything about the car the drugs and the delivery to mr covert yes and so back to the and so once that even if he  as she indicated even if there was standing on behalf of this recovery vs to challenge the stop she found that there was reasonable suspicion based on the troopers observation and there was apparent authority for this call case strictly limited his authority over that vehicle it was limited to the fact that he was to drive it on and drive it off in case there was an emergency and without any further questions  driver's access to the vehicle as well as we believe that the trial court respectfully was clearly erroneous and her factual findings that there was no objective or subjective expectation of privacy and the reason suspicion even if it was there we