Whether a relief driver of a rental vehicle had standing to challenge evidence seized from the car

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In September 2014, did a relief driver of a rental vehicle, driving with permission of the lessee, although contractually unauthorized, have standing to challenge evidence seized from the car, when he, the lessee, and a third occupant were stopped for an alleged traffic violation? 2. Did the defendant waive argument that the stop should never have occurred, since it was based upon a mistaken belief of state law by the officer? 3. Was the traffic stop unconstitutionally extended beyond time needed to complete the reason for the stop, and should any finding of consent to search be vitiated by the prolonged nature of the stop? 4. Was a sixteen-level increase in the Guidelines level for loss attributable to the defendant improperly calculated, instead of only eight levels, based upon the so-called “Texas trip,” immediately preceding the stop, given the tenuous connection of the defendant to earlier losses, and since instrumentalities, attributed to the defendant and needed to commit the crimes, were seized in the September 2014 search, long before later losses extended into 2015? 5. Was a four level increase for leadership role improperly assessed, such that the Court would likely have imposed a sentence lower than 120 months of imprisonment? 6. Was a two level increase for obstruction of justice improperly assessed when the court failed to credit the defendant with making an honest mistake in responding to a question about travel? i