Id. (citing State v. Futch, 715 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) and Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)); see also Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669, 678 (Fla.1994)(“imme-diately apparent” means that “at the time police view the object to be seized, they must have probable cause to believe that the object is contraband or evidence of a crime”). In this case, appellant does not dispute the validity of the arrest, the lawfulness of the officers’ entry into the apartment, or the fact that the shotgun was in plain view. His sole argument is that it was unlawful for the officers to seize the weapon because it was not immediately apparent to the officers that the gun was contraband. We agree. See generally Whiting v. State, 595 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(<HOLDING>). At the suppression hearing, there was no
holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon holding that the texas offense of possession of a prohibited weapon could only qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause of  4b12a2 holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime