Reardon understood Edwards’ consent to include the container that he carried was reasonable and not plainly wrong. To the extent to a search of “the contents and containers” of their vehicle. 14 Va.App. at 851, 419 S.E.2d at 868. Although this consent did not expressly include the trunk, they did not object or withdraw consent when the officer searched the trunk of the car. Id. We thus held that the defendants’ acquiescence in the search of the trunk clarified that their consent included the trunk. See id. Likewise in Rison, the defendant claimed that the trooper exceeded the scope of his consent to lding that failure to withdraw consent was evidence that defendant consented to search in progress); cf. Hughes v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 447, 458, 524 S.E.2d 155, 161 (2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Edwards’ initial consent to the search of his
holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search and the patdown of his person did not exceed the scope of his consent which included a search of the groin area holding that once initial consent to search has been given passive acquiescence broadens the scope of search 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 search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant