Brandon, a driver, was lawfully stopped by Colorado state police officers for speeding. Besides Brandon, there were two passengers in the vehicle—one male and one female. When the officer asked Brandon to produce evidence that he had the right to operate the vehicle, Brandon only produced an identification card. The officer then contacted his dispatcher to determine if Brandon was a licensed driver. While waiting for the dispatcher’s response, the officer asked Brandon and the passengers questions as to their destination and the purpose of their trip. The officer became suspicious when Brandon’s and the passengers’ answers were inconsistent. The dispatch notified the officer that Brandon was licensed in California. The officer then asked for and was given permission to search the car by the vehicle’s owner, the female passenger. Brandon, however, refused to consent to a search. The officer then put a police dog into the car and after the dog alerted to the presence of cocaine, it was seized, and Brandon was arrested. Brandon was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence of the cocaine. The trial court ruled that the female passenger had consented to the search that led to the discovery of the cocaine. The defendant then appealed to the state court of appeals. Should the appellate court reverse the trial court and suppress the evidence of cocaine?