With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person
C: holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car
D: 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
A.