citing State v. Kirk (1985), 493 A. 2d 1271. Therefore, defendant's reliance on Barcia is inapposite to the case sub judice. Applying the balancing test of Brown as articulated in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, supra, the neutral roadblock set up by the Cleveland Police based on public complaints and entailing only brief intrusions upon law-abiding citizens was reasonable and consistent with Fourth Amendment guarantees. Since Detective White had a lawful justification for the intrusion of the roadblock, when he observed first-hand the clear bag with green vegetation in defendant's breast pocket, its owner's privacy interest in that item was lost. Detective White was justified in seizing the evidence pursuant to the "plain view" exception. See Horton v. California (1990), 110 L. Ed. 112 (<HOLDING>); Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S.
holding inadvertence of discovery is not essential if items are in plain view holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery holding that one need only show that reasonable diligence would not have led to the discovery of essential information bearing on the claim holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that the majority view is that employers are not liable for theft committed by employees