Holiday in Oxnard, California, a few days before Trooper Kennedy

stopped him. We disagree. Mr. Hicks did not produce any documentary proof of ownership or

lawful possession, nor did he support his position by introducing testimony from Mr. Holiday or any

other witness. The only evidence he introduced in support of his position was his own testimony

during the suppression hearing. The district court was free to weigh Mr. Hicks's testimony together

with the other evidence introduced at the suppression hearing in reaching its decision. It was also

free to evaluate Mr. Hicks's credibility and to disregard his testimony if it found his credibility to be

lacking. That is precisely what the district court did in this case. It specifically found Mr. Hicks's

"explanation regarding his acquisition of the van was not credible."



   City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). As

noted above, Mr. Hicks admits the van was stolen from an automobile dealership in Oxnard,

California, approximately three months before Trooper Kennedy stopped him in Kansas. Despite

Trooper Kennedy's request, Mr. Hicks was unable to produce proof of registration. Mr. Hicks was

also unable to produce the individual from whom he supposedly purchased the van. In light of this

evidence, we find no fault with the district court's ultimate finding Mr. Hicks was not in lawful

possession of the van and that he lacked standing to object to the search.



       Next, Mr. Hicks concedes Trooper Kennedy acted reasonably when he stopped the van for

speeding, but contends "[t]he extended detention and search went well beyond the scope of the