¶ 14 Cases in which a search of a seized purse has nevertheless been found justified involve facts that are not present here. Appellant had been compliant when Officer Stewart asked her to stop. She had shown no interest in getting into the purse before Officer Stewart took it, had not resisted Officer Stewart when he took it, and had made no attempt to regain control over it after he took it. There was no testimony that the purse was heavy or that anything about its feel suggested that it contained a weapon. Nor was there any testimony establishing a reason to believe that Appellant had access to any weapons, nor were she and Officer Stewart alone, as both Officer Lilly and Appellant’s mother were present at the scene. See United States v. Flippin, 924 F.2d 163, 166 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Bush v. State, 632 P.2d 764, 765
holding that the opening of a makeup bag was justified when a woman had grabbed the bag when the officer turned away had resisted it being taken from her the bag felt heavy her companion had been armed the previous day and the officer and individual were alone holding an officers reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed was sufficient justification for seizure of suspects makeup bag and exigent circumstances justified the subsequent warrantless search of the closed bag holding the opening and inventory of a shoulder bag was reasonable despite the possible alternative of securing the bag as a whole holding that the owner of a shoulder bag located on the front seat of his girlfriends car had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag and its contents holding that when fleeing felon tossed a mesh bag weighing four or five pounds toward the officer the officer would have been justified if he fired at that moment out of fear that the bag might knock his firearm out of his hand but that he was not justified in firing after bag hit him and fell to the ground without injuring him and suspect turned and ran