lawful entry. Specifically, the court finds that the mesh wire enabled O’Connell, and as a matter of fact any person, to readily observe the interior of Bin 1138 from a vantage point he had been given free access to by Shugard’s assistant manager. O’Connell used a free-standing ladder to observe the interior and did not interfere with the defendant’s property to secure his observations. Indeed, O’Connell was not trespassing on any property when he saw, with his naked eyes, the contents of Bin 1138. Accordingly, I do not believe that the agents infringed upon the defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy. Taborda 635 F.2d at 139; Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 696-97, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); see also, United States v. Bellina, 665 F.2d 1335, 1345 (4th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Based on the circumstances giving rise to
holding that there is no illegal search within the fourth amendment where a police officer makes a visual observation of contraband from a vantage point he rightfully occupies recognizing the courts continued holding that visual observation is no search at all holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant holding that even an officers testimony concerning appearance and smell of illegal contraband based on experience is sufficient to prove the contraband is illegal holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car