With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". person [would] have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect,” Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. at 1803-04. What a magistrate envisions when issuing a warrant for the search of a person, and, more importantly, what the Constitution permits under the language of that warrant, may be very different from what “the typical reasonable person [would] have understood” when consenting to a search of one’s person. The majority cites not a single case dealing with the meaning of “person” within the context of a consent search. Because the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving consent, cases dealing with the construction of a warrant authorizing the search of a person or a particular premises simply are not persuasive. Finally, the additiona 1500-01 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888,

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent
D: holding that the defendant who stood by and watched as the officers searched the vehicle consented to a search during which officers checked under a cars seat looked in the cars glove compartment and removed a speaker by unscrewing it from a panel
C.