you may please the court federally jr for the government the district courts the suppression ruling violated basic principles of fourth amendment standing in causation if i only did standing principles constitutional violations suffered by this defendant his illegal detention following a traffic stop was not a but for cause of the vehicle search that produced the gun regardless of whether the police detained this defendant or permitted him to leave the car would have stayed at the scene the police would have searched the car and they would have found the gun two circuits have addressed and now i guess situations involving illegal those decisions approach the problem precisely the same way the holder the first instance that the defendant last standing as a passenger is a mere passenger to challenge the search of the car directly then they turn to whether the defendant can challenge the search of the car indirectly in what they find is that the defendant's detention on the side of the road following a lawful traffic stop doesn't predicate or of change in the search of the vehicle which follows and for that reason scenario would be a lot closer to the jones case which the defense sides in that situation the police officer engages the defendant in a colloquy during the the defendant's illegal detention on the side of  and the case could well be made that in that kind of scenario the officers decision to go into the car and look under the seat is based upon what the defendant told him during his illegal detention in that kind of case you might have causation didn't learn anything during this event his detention that caused them to go into the car the driver of the car mr richards testified or i believe it might be his affidavit stated that the police did not ask him or the defendant whether they had any contraband in the car the sort of question the judge wallace just posed let me ask you and i think different question well is why and what is the legal or because the police couldn't have searched the car without pulling over the car and violating the passenger's fourth amendment rights in this case the sole constitutional violation is the passenger's detention following the traffic stop occupants are in that cars are seizing precisely the same way it's the same action that seizes everybody in that car and as a matter of pure physics the rights have to be coextensive you can't stop one of the people in the car without stopping all of the people in the car because they're all in the car once the cars hold over in this case the constitutional violation does not begin until the cars already pulled over the detention of the passenger is s from the detention of the driver and that's very important because the fourth a minute fourth amendment case law has long held that fourth amendment rights are personal and that the court must focus on the individual rights that have been violated as to the defense and not as to other people the court cannot simply collapsed this defendant's constitutional rights his fourth amendment rights against an illegal illegal seizure into the driver's constitutional rights which is what the district court did hear you're on the car your honor i believe that the district court found that there was no reasonable suspicion to search the car so the search of the car was itself invalid the problem is that this defendant doesn't have standing to challenge the search of the car directly so the district court found but again this defendant doesn't has any constitutional right to challenge the search of the car directly does any privacy interest the record is clear this defendant doesn't own the car doesn't have a possessory interest in the car doesn't use the car and for that and we know this from rockets so whether the police were focused on this defendant from the outset the start of their investigation when they saw him at the apartment complex is constitutionally relevant the second point in this is an important point i take from your honest question that you honour's concerned about deterrence and deterrence wouldn't be furthered by the district court's ruling here this is a preliminary point it wouldn't be only advanced in this case because the rational officer faced with this decision and defend a defendant passenger in illegally searched the car knowingly on the off chance that the evidence would be admissible against the passenger there's a couple of reasons for this first any rational officer would know that that driver would have standing to challenge whatever he found so that's a strong disincentive on the other hand the officer would be guessing as to whether the defendant passenger would have some kind of interest in the car maybe he owns the car maybe he ha interest in the car the officer could have any confidence that the defendant passenger wouldn't be able to challenge the search of the car as an indirect direct or indirect violation and another point is and the officer would need to get it to get into i don't think that deterrence to be furthered in this case but even if it was on assume that there's some marginal benefit deterrence wise flowing from the district court's ruling supreme court has made that other hand the interest in having otherwise admissible evidence introduced at trial is to restrict the exclusionary rule to violations of the defendant's constitutional rights and in this case the evidence that he wants to police well your honor this applies to your question is is an interesting one because what the record evidence implicitly shows and what what it means judge patters ruling or start the car they said you can go we don't you walk away if you want to talk to you most of the way i see i understand your question i know in that case he would have neither standing to object to the search directly because he has no possessory interest in the car nor any  says that would help him because there's no nexus whatsoever between anything that happened no constitutional violation no your honor there would not be but that's that's not exactly what we have here suppose he's not handcuffed he's just said wait there for a few minutes while we ask a few questions of the driver and then they go in search while they're doing it and he then again it depends on whether went there for a few minutes while we ask some questions of the constitutional but for causation but the courts talk about that if he happens to have handcuffs on and he's illegally stopped and he's just stands there because it's a question of what the primary illegality is considered to be in this case that is better one was implicitly adopted by chatter in this instance if you were you would follow it isn't a question of following the majority you started off saying that you would follow the majority test in the local but actually from those of the driver who was had the possessory interest in the car from the fruit of the search so there is there was no requirement in that case i think any showing whatsoever that his own stripper a week and has no idea where she lives or even in what direction he would have to drive to get there and so the need in neither case does the passenger seem to have added much to the next and so it makes if you were docked a heightened but more test and if you think you will accept as the government asks you to that the primary legality in these cases is restricted to what happens to the passenger here yes and if you need to heighten issues there wasn't any in carter and deluca but there is a very much heightened nexus traction only in this what he was doing there and so that his detention just personal my lation of his personal fourth amendment rights can be seen to have led directly to the detention of mr richards in the car which in turn led to the search of the car which in turn led to the discovery of the gun and so even if you're looking for a guy i think a heightened factual nexus test in which there has to be you know the tightest conceivable there has to be some kind of showing about how the one improper one tainted the evidence that was gathered throughout the whole investigation this is a very clear and unquestioned serious and then that those for argues extensively below the did the defendant had every opportunity to file a declaration and all the evidence that's in the record is to the contrary on the point of standing the defendant didn't have any interest in the car the  found suggested that the police had decided to follow the defendant and mr richards at the apartment and for a television scattering purposes i believe that this report found that happened before the detention on this record there's simply nothing happened during the detention that informed the officers decision to search the car they had already decided to do that that's what the district court found and the last point if this court were to treat everything that happened at that scene as a unit the way th