U.S. v. Ladeaux, 2006 WL 1902657 (7/12/06) - It was okay for the state police officer to require all the occupants to leave the car during a traffic stop. But, it may not have been okay to order one of the occupants to roll up the windows and turn on the vents to facilitate a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion. The 10th remanded because the d.ct. had not considered the legitimacy of the window-vent order. The 10th instructed that the d.ct. must decide whether the officer gave an order or only made a request and whether the officer directed the order to the defendant. If those findings go the defendant's way, then the defendant has the burden to show a factual nexus between the order and the discovery of the evidence, i.e., apparently that the dog would not have alerted to the car if the defendant had not closed the windows and opened the vents. The 10th acknowledges that this factual nexus requirement for passengers with no privacy rights in the vehicle, which the 10th established in Nava-Ramirez, 210 F.3d 1128 (2000) and DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128, 1133 (2001), has been criticized for undermining the exclusionary rule and encouraging flagrantly illegal violations of passengers' 4th Amendment rights. But, the panel can't overturn that authority.