With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 1256, 1259 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)). The district court referred to this principle as Fourth Amendment “standing,” but this terminology is, technically, “a misnomer.” Id. at 1260 ant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence has important consequences for his arguments concerning the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. B. At the outset of our discussion, we note that Defendant did not argue in district court that his rights, as compared to those of Gonzalez, were violated by an illegal detention. The district court correctly concluded the cases Defendant relied upon were, therefore, distinguishable on this fact alone. See United States v. DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1500

A: holding the defendant could contest the lawfulness of his own detention and seek suppression of drugs found in a vehicle search after he was detained as the fruit  of that illegal detention even though defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle searched
B: holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent
C: holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
D: holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes
A.