its expressed object.” Id. Bolda v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 315, 317, 423 S.E.2d 204, 206 (1992) (quoted in Bynum, 23 Va.App. at 418, 477 S.E.2d at 753). “ ‘A suspect may of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents. But if his consent would reasonably be pe of the search of a person, the Court noted: The hum 996) (concluding that search of defendant’s purse constituted a search of her person); Wisconsin v. Andrews, 201 Wis.2d 383, 549 N.W.2d 210, 216, 218 (1996) (noting that items worn by, or appended to the body of, a person are included within the concept of the person and, therefore, are not encompassed by a search warrant that does not specifically authorize a search of the person); Hayes v. Georgia, 141 Ga.App. 706, 234 S.E.2d 360, 361-62 (1977) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177,
holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding search of suitcase found next to man sleeping on couch was unconstitutional where officers had warrant for particular apartment and its occupant and failed prior to search to take reasonable steps to determine whether suitcase belonged to occupant named in warrant or to nonresident visitor