L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). The Supreme Court explained that this action, which was unrelated to the objective of an authorized intrusion into the house, exposed concealed parts of the apartment to view and produced a new invasion of privacy that constituted a search. Id. at 325, 107 S.Ct. 1149. Analyzing the reasonableness of the search, the Supreme Court held that probable cause is generally required to conduct a search of an object in plain view, and the officer’s reasonable suspicion that the equipment was stolen was not enough to support the movement and examination of the stereo equipment. Id. at 325-29, 107 S.Ct. 1149. Here, we agree that Officer Harter’s movement of the laptop to view its serial number constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 324-25, 107 S.Ct. 1149 (<HOLDING>). Because Officer Harter’s action exceeded the
holding that an officers movement of stereo components to examine their serial numbers was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding an officers movement of stereo equipment to view a serial number constituted a search under the fourth amendment 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 seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment