I am not sure I agree with your conclusion.
The is how I understand the following rulings:
In Arizona vs. Johnson, the ruling states that during a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search (not an "exploration of pockets" search that was performed on the person in my question) a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe the passenger is committing or has committed, a criminal
In Hiibel vs Sixth Jud. Dist., an officer may not arrest a subject for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2412: It is unlawful for a person...to fail to refuse to state person's true name on request of a police officer who has lawfully detained based on reasonable suspicion the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Brendin simply states that the passenger is seized during the course of a traffic stop, and is not free to go. This doesn't mean that the passenger subject to the driver's unlawfulness that precipitated the stop in the first place.
If I am correct in the above assessments, I don't see how the passenger in my question could have been legally searched by the police officer. Thus the evidence would surely need to be repressed.