cocaine or heroin (or some innocuous substance). Yet that cannot be a reason for finding no probable cause.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1196, 127 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994). 6 .This opinion should not be read to hold that the mere presence of white powder residue in a plastic bag, by itself, will always give rise to probable cause. We hold only that under the circumstances of the present case, the incriminating nature of the evidence found in plain view was "immediately apparent.” This factor distinguishes this case from the situation in Hicks. In Hicks, the officer’s search of the stereo was improper because, based upon his knowledge and experience, he lacked probable cause to suspect that the equipment was stolen or evidence of a crime. See Hicks, 480 U.S. at 328, 107 S.Ct. at 1154 (<HOLDING>). 7 . John Buchanan also asserts that the
holding that the officers examination revealed that there was probable cause to believe that the property was stolen holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view holding that observance of stereo turntable in plain view did not justify police moving turntable in order to read its serial number when they lacked probable cause holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence