boots were in plain view, were not hidden in a closet, but in the officer’s line of vision under the dresser. Second, Hicks discovered the boots inadvertently. The police came to defendant’s home to take him into custody and to question him at headquarters. They did not know in advance that defendant would not be dressed, or that they would have an opportunity to enter his bedroom. They were not certain whether defendant owned the boots, where the boots were located, or their shape, size or color. The “hope” nestled in the back of Detective Hicks’s mind that he might learn something about the burglary in the course of defendant’s arrest .does not defeat the notion that his discovery of the boots was an inadvertent fortuity. See United States v. Johnson, 707 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The third requirement is also met. Hicks knew
holding plain view discovery of firearms in defendants residence inadvertent notwithstanding that police expected to find weapons there and may have been able to obtain a warrant to search for them holding warrant was overbroad when probable cause existed to search for a pistol but warrant permitted search and seizure of all firearms and ammunition holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found 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 probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons