proclaims [their] contents; [consequently,] the contents cannot fairly be said to have been removed from a searching officer’s view,” Robbins, 453 U.S. at 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841. Individuals, therefore, possess a lesser expectation of privacy in the contents of such containers when the container is observed from a lawful vantage point. There is some suggestion, however, that this does not end the inquiry of whether police may open the container without a warrant because the contents of a single-purpose container are not truly in plain view. In Arizona v. Hicks, the Court gave life to the idea that some lesser invasions of privacy might be justified without a warrant when part of the object is in plain view and police have probable cause to seize it. 480 U.S. at 325, 107 S.Ct. 1149 (<HOLDING>). The single-purpose nature of a container
holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein holding that an officers movement of stereo components to examine their serial numbers was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment 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 probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view holding an officers movement of stereo equipment to view a serial number constituted a search under the fourth amendment