The district court erred in denying appellant’s suppression motion based on a lack of standing. The district court’s findings of fact established, as a matter of law, that appellants were overnight guests of Oscar Carillo, and as such had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer while staying there “for food and rest.” The case was remanded to permit appellants to contest the Border Patrol’s search and seizure on Fourth Amendment grounds. Issues of vindictive prosecution, and quantity of marijuana for purposes of sentencing, were not summarized. Judge Noonan dissented, finding appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer.