In State v. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. 1982), a trooper with the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped a car in which the defendant was riding when the trooper observed the car weaving across several lanes. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 717, 719. The trooper discovered that both the driver of the car and the defendant were intoxicated. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 719. Accordingly, he called for assistance and additionally arranged for a "local wrecker company" to tow the car off the interstate highway. Id. Before allowing the towing company to move the car, the trooper conducted a search of the car and discovered a duffel bag in the trunk. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 719-720. A search of the duffel bag revealed, in turn, seventy-four pounds of peyote cactus buttons containing mescaline. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 717. In affirming the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress the peyote cactus buttons, the supreme court held that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the search of the duffel bag, because he never claimed "any right, title or interest in or to the duffel bag or its contents." Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 719-720. However, unlike the appellant in the instant case, the defendant in Roberge did not allege that he had been unlawfully seized. Rather, at trial and on appeal, the defendant only challenged the search of the trunk of the car and the search of the duffel bag. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 717-718. Moreover, in affirming the trial court's ruling in Roberge, the supreme court did not rely solely upon the defendant's lack of standing to challenge the search of the duffel bag but carefully noted that the search of the trunk of the car, as to which the defendant did possess standing, was a valid inventory search. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 717-718, 719-720. In short, the defendant's lack of standing to challenge the search of the duffel bag was only dispositive in the context of a valid inventory search of the trunk of the defendant's car.