are factual issues for the trial court to resolve after consideration of the attendant circumstances.” Bynum v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 412, 418, 477 S.E.2d 750, 753 (1996). “A consensual search is reasonable if the search is within the scope of the consent given.” Grinton v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 846, 850, 419 S.E.2d 860, 862 (1992). The United States Supreme Court has articulated the standard for measuring the scope of an individual’s consent under the Fourth Amendment to be “ ‘objective’ reasonableness—what would the typical person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1804, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). Furthermore, the Court stated that, “[t]he scope of a search is generally defined (D.C.Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, hold that the scope of consent
holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his apartment dissipated taint of prior illegal search holding the opening and inventory of a shoulder bag was reasonable despite the possible alternative of securing the bag as a whole holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment