Similarly, although the district court’s order noted that the government’s evidence did not establish that Heath had actually seen narcotics (or firearms) anywhere in the house prior to the officers’ entry into the residence, the district court did not, at any point, make specific findings on this question. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party (here, Heath), see United States v. Harrell, 268 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.2001), we cannot say that Heath actually saw the cocaine on the stairwell, on the landing, or at the bottom of the stairwell before he entered the bedroom and began to speak on the cell phone. Still, undisputed evidence indicates that the bags of cocaine at the bottom of the stairs were in plain sight when the officer 68, 770 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In the case before us, there is no evidence
holding that undercover agents observation of cocaine and marijuana in plain view throughout an apartment containing six men provided probable cause to arrest all six occupants holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein recognizing without inquiring whether the officers would necessarily have arrested the defendant that the discovery of the marijuana in the van provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and upon arrest the officers unquestionably would have searched the defendant and discovered the marijuana in his pocket 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 a six month delay was unreasonable