The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a search of a vehicle in United States v. Parada where the defendant provided no evidence that he had standing to challenge the search of a cooler full of PCP in the vehicle. Norman A. Parada was a passenger in a rented vehicle traveling from Los Angeles to Virginia. He was one of four people in the vehicle. The ability to challenge an illegal search is a personal right and only those who have a possessory or ownership interest in an item can challenge its search. The burden to prove standing is on the defendant challenging the search. Since the defendant provided no evidence of possession of the cooler at the suppression hearing in the trial court the appellate court found, as did the trial, court that he did not have standing to challenge the search of the cooler.

Five people including Parada drove to Los Angeles. Four of them drove back with a cooler in the car which was full of PCP. They were stopped for a traffic violation in Kansas. After the police officer became suspicious he had his dog, Rico sniff the vehicle. The dog alerted on the left side of the vehicle. A search of the vehicle found some marijuana on the left side of the vehicle and the PCP in back. Parada challenged the existence of probable cause for the search. The appellate panel found that the dog sniffing is sufficient to show that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place” and therefore probable cause existed to search the vehicle.