Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Lexus. 28 . 618 A.2d 176 (D.C.1992). 29 . Id. at 177. ("Appellant replied that he did not own a car, but he was driving one." Id.) 30 . That Scott might not have been driving the Lexus on the day he was arrested does not mean he lacked standing to object to the search of the vehicle. As a permitted co-user of the vehicle, Scott had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if White was using it that particular day. 31 . United States v. Brown, 708 A.2d 637, 639 (D.C.1998); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(c), at 412 (4th ed.2004) (explaining that to justify a warrant-less search, the government must establish "a sufficient nexus between (1) criminal activity, and (2) the things to be seized, and (3) the place to be searched”). 32 . Cf. Brown, 708 A.2d at 638-39 (<HOLDING>). 33 . Cf. Spinner, 618 A.2d at 179 (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that search was proper where a drug dog jumped into the open trunk of a car and keyed on a duffel bag after the suspect opened the trunk (B) holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money (C) holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not (D) holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car (E) holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
Output (English): holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car