to raise any claim contesting Defendants’ entry into her home or taking of photographs, and she cannot add such a claim at this stage of the litigation. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the photographs are inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionary rule, the court disagrees — there is no indication of an illegal search in any of Plaintiff's filings. It appears that Plaintiff voluntarily permitted Defendants to enter the home. After entering the home, the officers were entitled to photograph objects in their plain view, and they were also permitted to photograph evidence they viewed from outside the residence, such as the window screens. See Wilson v. Supt., Attica Corr. Facility, No. 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GLS), 2003 WL 22765351, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003) (report and recommendation) (<HOLDING>), adopted, Order, 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GS)
holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found holding that photographs taken of items outside defendants apartment that were in plain view of the officer were properly admitted