1093 (“Moreover, unlike an encounter on the street or along a highway, an in-home arrest puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary’s ‘home turf.’ An ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration is more to be feared than it is in open, more familiar surroundings”). These rows would have given a fugitive or confederates excellent places to hide. D. The Admissible Evidence Is Limited The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment clearly applies in this case: (1) Special Agent Scartozzi was lawfully present when he conducted a protective sweep pursuant to Buie, and (2) there was probable cause to believe that the “drug paraphernalia” seen was evidence of criminal conduct under United States v. Main Street Distrib., Inc., 700 F.Supp. 655, 659 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). See Horton, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110
holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that even though containers were not contraband under an earlier drug paraphernalia statute a totality of the circumstances test for determining probable cause could include consideration of such containers holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband  will be found in a particular place holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences