in this case but i'd like to focus this morning on the issue of standing to challenge the search of the vehicle contrary to the district court's conclusion mr rodriguez did have standing to challenge the search of the cadillac there's no dispute that if mr adriance was in fact the owner of the vehicle he would have standing now there's no controlling case law in this circuit that indicates what a defendant has t said no expectation of the car to be returned he was not actually indicted for two years after all of this took place and it's certainly not a reasonable that he would not have had the paperwork for a vehicle that he had for a matter of  within the vehicle specifically all of the mail of which of course he was charged with the backpack that was found in the trunk that contained the what is what is a relevant of the contents what so that who asserts ownership in both the vehicle and the property within the vehicle that is helpful evidence for determining whether or not he in fact had a legitimate expectation of privacy and was had an ownership assertion by the defendant of ownership both for the vehicle and the property with that and the timing of when that was made mr mr rodriguez did not wait until the suppression hearing to say i was the owner in order to invoke standing he said this immediately when he was arrested he waved around and said all of this stuff was mine right and so that also suggests that would not you have something better to argue your honor there is nothing in the case law that says he needs to have a sworn statement indicating that he was the owner of the cases starting with reckless talk about the defendant asserting an ownership  subsequent search of the car what we have new there are each other the government has said that it didn't really have any effect on anything so because nothing was found their position your time is ticking so their position is nothing was found during the frist right so can i just go straight to my question perhaps officer who asked him to step out of the car said in his declaration that i decided i'm paraphrasing of course i decided i was going to frisk him ok if if if on my score die hard i think he didn't have when he needed to frisk that individual at that time but if we have authority that says that the officer would have been within his rights to ask him to just step out of a car during the duration of the stop is that sufficient it is sufficient well because my understanding is that when he stepped out of the the officers version of events is that a pipe fell out and some paraphernalia fell out and took that point that the face of circumstances changed quite markedly so just back up the clock with about thirty seconds in the sequence the officer sa i in his declaration i determined for officer safety i was going to frisk this individual right my hypothetical is just assume for a minute that i think i'm just one of three that i think that there wasn't sufficient grounds to frisk that individual at that time on the other hand we have case law authorizing the police officer to to request that your client step out of the car for the duration of the stop right so what do i do with those two complex authorities when i we're out with what we do know is that the the officers testified that based on the evidence that was discovered because they decided to take him out and frisk him that based on that that gave the a uthorization to then search the vehicle in fact the officer one officer testified that he had shown a flashlight before anyone was taken out of the car and didn't see anything unlawful but that once that pipe  has to assert for purposes of standing i would suggest there are some conflicts or some tension as to whether or not invoking the possessory interest in the contents that were actually  give standing or not we believe it does some good if that goes back to judge kozinski question i was trying to get you to address something else in response to the questions just because it was asking you seem to be taking the position that the police officer to work required to rely on your client's assertion that he owned that car and the title wasn't registered to your client well it's not clear who was the registered owner and i know that the district court said well the uncontested evidence was that he wasn't but in fact that's not true because the only evidence presented was the officer saying that the vehicle report i prepared is the evidence of this of this person that nobody knows about is the registered owner but then when he  will give you one minute from a b declaration he doesn't expect the russian that the reason for asking mr drake assistant out of the car was to frisk him right that's what he says in its declaration what he doesn't say is i told mr rodriguez that it was i was going to arrest him when he stepped out of the car at that point asking mr rodriguez to get out of the car was off before it can i can i just forgive me for interrupting but right there that's the exact one but i'm wondering about since this officer didn't say that's why he was asking him to get out of the car is asking for different reason does that matter well he wasn't asking him he was directly to maybe you know what i guess the question is yes it doesn't make any difference i think under the the sort of doctrine about whether the subject of intentions of the officer matter and in bren and cases that follow that it doesn't matter under the fourth amendment he's allowed to ask the passenger to get out of the car and that's pennsylvania versus men at that point before any terry first takes place mr r car it couldn't produce the search of the car would produce the search of the car with the bindles of methamphetamine on the ground and the glass pipe right under those and it dropped after the terry's for us he was holding it in his hand the frisk took place the defendant well but it that's why it goes right to that minute when when the officer asked him to step out of the car he's asking him step to step out of the hopped car because he thinks he's got reason to do a terry frisk right i question that and i think what the government relying upon is he could have asked him to step out of the car for really no reason at all except that he was going to ask him to step up for the duration of the stop that's absolutely right and then before any terry first took place he dropped the bindles of methamphetamine so let's assume that the terry first was not justified under the fourth amendment that still produces evidence of the drugs the been tools of methamphetamine and that was sufficient to allow the officers to search the car as to standing your honors again just to go through the facts really quickly it least in our district court defendants are normally required to submit a declaration under oath that attests to all the facts that they're going to rely on in their motions to suppress and the defendant didn't do that in this case no one we didn't challenge it below so i'm just mentioning that as i can textual fact here that goes to the reliability of the defendant statement the defendant has the burden to show that he has standing in a certain place that the defendant here relied solely upon that hearsay statement that was in a police report that he offered during mirandized interview after the incident the defendant could have produced other evidence i e i'm speculating he could have produced d m v documents he could have called as a witness the person that purportedly sold him the car i think he didn't bring any of that evidence to court the government relied on officer oakum and statement in his declaration and then a violation or vehicle report that he submitted to the police to show that he had search records and found that there was another owner of the car i don't think the district court was wrong to find that the defendant's evidence was not sufficient in light of the evidence that contradicted it to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car unless the court has any other questions and i submit thank you