“the glove box, the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle” when the trooper searched underneath the back seat of the vehicle. 946 F.2d at 1501. The defendant, however, standing only five feet from the automobile during the search, did not object to the search of the back seat. On these facts, the court held that “it would be reasonable to conclude that defendant’s acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent.” Id. Similarly, Edwards, after consenting to the search of “his person,” which could reasonably be understood to include the bag he held, stood in close proximity to the officer when he began to search the bag and did not object, withdraw his consent, or otherwise limit the scope of his consent. See Grinton, 14 Va.App. at 851, 419 S.E.2d at 863 (<HOLDING>); McNair, 31 Va.App. at 83, 521 S.E.2d at 307
holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that a consent to search that is given only after an official falsely asserts possession of a search warrant is unconstitutional holding that where defendant consented to search of his car and stood by as agent conducted a thorough and systematic search which included removal of vehicles back seat and raising of cars rear quarter panel defendants failure to object to search indicated search was within scope of consent holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search holding that once initial consent to search has been given passive acquiescence broadens the scope of search