Does a passenger have standing to challenge the search of a vehicle in which they have no ownership or possessory interest?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A passenger’s Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy does not emanate solely from the concept of real or personal property. It is derived from the expectation that as a passenger one retains a reasonable expectation of privacy that one may assert. A person, then, particularly a passenger, need not always have a recognized common-law property interest in the place searchable to claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Two interrelated questions emerge: (1) Why is the owner of a vehicle entitled to challenge the seizure from it of evidence even if he is absent at the time of the search, while a nonowner enjoying in person, and with the owner’s permission, the privacy of an automobile, is not so entitled, Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 164, 99 S.Ct. 421, 441, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)(White, J., dissent), particularly when the district court grants the driver’s motion to suppress evidence on grounds as lessee only he could consent to a search? (2) Does Byrd v. United States, 138 8.Ct. 1518, 200 L.Ed.805 (2018) (mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed as an authorized driver on rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment), extend to a passenger lawfully in an automobile standing to invoke the exclusionary rule and challenge the search of that vehicle in which he has no ownership or possessory interest?