the contrary, likely to be complicit in the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Pennington, 287 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Having entered the residence lawfully, the officers could act upon the drug manufacturing evidence in plain view. That evidence provided probable cause to arrest [the occupant of the apartment], which justified a search of his person incident to the arrest.”) (internal citation omitted); United States v. Jones, 72 F.3d 1324, 1332-33 (7th Cir.1995) (concluding that probable cause existed based on defendant’s “evident status as a resident of a private household in which counterfeit money was being sold on a regular basis and in which the evidence of counterfeiting lay in plain view” (emphasis added)); United States v. Holder, 990 F.2d 1327, 1329 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Hollyfield v. United States, 407 F.2d 1326,
holding that keeping narcotics openly on display in a private residence was indicative that the residences owner considered a visitor sufficiently complicit to allow him a full view holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence holding that home was community property where predecessor residence was initially purchased with separate funds but proceeds from sale of predecessor residence were commingled with community property upon sale and applied to succeeding residences noting there was no evidence of how value should have been apportioned between community and separate property each time the parties sold a residence during the period of the marriage holding that a couple keeping bengal tigers at their residence violated a restrictive covenant that only allowed the keeping of household pets