The central issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding Bissegger, as a passenger, lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search of her personal belongings in the car. Thus we must determine, as a matter of law, whether Bis-segger's "expectation of privacy" was objectively reasonable and legitimate,. Id. at 915. ANALYSIS I. Standing 16 Bissegger argues that as a passenger in a car she has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search of the car. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. " Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, .Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). 112 We conclude Bissegger had a legitimate
holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car holding that car passenger who left her purse in her boyfriends car had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of her purse indeed a purse is a type of container in which a person possesses the highest expectations of privacy holding that a car passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his closed plastic shopping bag found on the floor of the car holding that car passenger whose purse was found on floor behind drivers seat and searched had standing because a purse is clearly a container in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy