testified that his “search of [appellant’s] person” yielded nothing incriminating and that he did not ask for consent to search the bag of socks. The cases cited by the majority do not support the conclusion that appellant’s consent to a search of his person necessarily included consent to a search of the bag of socks. As the majority concedes, this issue is one of first impression in Virginia, and even the cases from other jurisdictions upon which the majority relies involved construction “of the term ‘person’ in the context of [ (1)] searching ‘the person’ pursuant to a warrant” for that person or (2) searching the belongings of a nonresident visitor pursuant to a warrant for the premises on which the person was found. See United States v. Graham, 638 F.2d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d
holding that bjecause a search of a students wallet purse or other bag carried on his or her person is undoubtedly a severe violation of subjective expectations of privacy  individualized suspicion is a necessary element in determining reasonableness where  the principal emptied the contents of the mjinors purse internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that a shoulder purse carried by a person at the time he is stopped lies within the scope of a warrant authorizing the search of his person