cigarettes for him following his arrest). The record indicates that Mr. Casto had the pawn ticket for the sprayer out on the counter before Sergeant Hall even arrived at the pawn shop, that he confirmed that it was the sprayer that Mr. Baldwin had reported stolen, and that he took Sergeant Hall to the back room to view the sprayer without protest. These facts conclusively demonstrate that Sergeant Hall was lawfully in the place to see the sprayer and, via Casto’s consent, had lawful access to it. Mr. Casto’s identification of the sprayer and Sergeant Hall’s inspection, which included matching the serial number to that of the sprayer reported to be stolen, satisfied the need for the object’s incriminating character to be immediately apparent. See G & G Jewelry, Inc., 989 F.2d at 1101 (<HOLDING>). The plain view doctrine justified Sergeant
holding that the officers examination revealed that there was probable cause to believe that the property was stolen holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime