(1980) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474-75, 477-78, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)). Agents may, however, seize evidence without a warrant if it is in “plain view.” Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022. An object is in plain view if: (1) “the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed”; (2) the item’s “incriminating character [was] immediately apparent”; and (3) the officer had “a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). In this instance, we need not address all three factors of the plain view analysis because we conclude the criminal nature of the firearms was not immediately apparent. See id. (<HOLDING>). “An item’s incriminating nature is
holding that in determining whether a seizure has occurred a court must consider if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view holding all three conditions must be present to justify a warrantless seizure under the plain view doctrine holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that a seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine where there was probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity