Padilla

Xavier, Maria, and Jorge Padilla appeal the district court’s ruling that they lack standing to challenge a search of a car that they were not driving and that they did not own. This court previously held that the Padillas had standing to contest the search. United States v. Padilla, 960 F.2d 854, 858-61 (9th Cir.1992). On certiorari,' the Supreme Court reversed, holding our coconspir-ator exception to the Fourth Amendment’s standing requirements invalid. United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 78 , 113 S.Ct. 1936, 1937 , 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993). The Court remanded for a determination of whether the Padillas had a property interest that was interfered with by the stop of the car, or a reasonable expectation of privacy that was invaded by the search. See id. at 82 , 113 S.Ct. at 1939 . On remand, the district court found that the Padillas met neither requirement and therefore lacked standing to contest the search. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 26, 1989, Officer Fifer of the Arizona Department of Public Safety stopped a car traveling on Interstate 10 toward Phoenix. The driver of the car was Luis Arciniega, but the car belonged to Donald Simpson, a U.S.…