in the purse with which Appellant might harm either herself or him. We assume, without deciding, that this justifies Officer Stewart’s seizure of Appellant’s purse. ¶ 12 But the State must also justify the immediate search of the purse after it was in Officer Stewart’s control. After the purse’s seizure, the danger of Appellant using something in it to harm herself or others was removed. Generally, once a purse is no longer in its owner’s possession, a protective search of the purse is not justified pursuant to Terry. See State v. Schellhorn, 95 Or. App. 297, 769 P.2d 221, 223 (1989) (“[O]nce the officer had seized the purse, he no longer had any reason to believe that it still posed an immediate threat to him.”); People v. Stewart, 166 Mich.App. 263, 420 N.W.2d 180, 181-82 (1988) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wynne, 552 N.W.2d 218, 222
holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that the search of purses could not be justified as a protective search for weapons when police had control of the purses holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent holding that long authorizes protective search of vehicle for weapons during terry stop even when suspect is outside vehicle and effectively under police control recognizing that a protective search of a residence may be justified when the defendant is arrested outside of the home