Officer's Confusion About What Law Was Violated Did Not Render Stop Unconstitutional

US v. Eckhart, -- F.3d --, 2009 WL 1841695 (10th Cir. 6/29/09) - affirmance of denial of motion to suppress. Stop of California vehicle in Utah was justified because it was in violation of Utah law requiring license plate to be clearly visible. Not a problem that the officer was confused about what law was violated since there was an actual violation. Enforcement of Utah's license plate statutes on out-of-state drivers does not violate the Commerce Clause because in-state and out-of-state travelers are not treated differently. Officer's request for drivers licenses and vehicle registration did not violate the Fourth Amendment. District court correctly concluded that driver and passenger lacked standing to challenge vehicle search because they did not establish a link between the registered owner of the vehicle and themselves. Miranda warnings were not necessary prior to arrest given that officers did not use highly intrusive measures. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in denying minor or minimal participant adjustments.