[8] The police officer, Sergeant LaRault, testified that he was looking for any evidence that would show that Horton had committed the robbery.

[16] In Arizona v. Hicks[17] (1987), the Court had determined that if an object was in "plain view", then it did not involve any expectation of privacy that would prevent it from being "searched" or "seized".

While staying well within the range of a rifle search, they discover two photographs of the murder victim, both in plain sight in the bedroom.

And in both situations the actual inconvenience and danger to evidence remain identical if the officers must depart and secure a warrant.

He believed that Justice Stewart's opinion in Coolidge was the correct interpretation of the plain view doctrine.

[24][d] Brennan noted that a warrantless search was per se unreasonable unless it met a warrant exception.

[27] He believed that unless the discovery of the evidence in plain view was inadvertent, as Justice Stewart had outlined the doctrine in Coolidge, it would excuse officers who do not have a warrant that describes the items to be seized with the required particularity.