search incident to arrest. Three conditions are necessary to sustain a plain view search. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). First, the police officer must be in a place where he has a lawful right to be. Id. Second, in the course of his presence the officer must inadvertently see an object in plain view. Id. Third, it must be immediately apparent to the officer that the object is contraband or evidence of a crime. Id. In determining whether the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent, police are not required to know that an item is contraband. See State v. Walker, 729 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citation omitted). Rather, it is enough that “the facts available to the offi 8), rev. denied, 729 So.2d 389 (Fla.1999)(<HOLDING>). The State has not provided, and we have not
holding that a seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine where there was probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity holding that exception applies to statement by handcuffed defendant as to location of a gun in an apartment even where most of the other adults in the apartment were handcuffed because even assuming the executing officers believed that the residence was secure  the circumstances were still sufficiently dangerous holding that police seizure of weapon in plain view was lawful search incident to arrest where appellant was handcuffed but sitting within a few feet from where the gun was located holding that a showup identification was valid even though the suspect was handcuffed holding that police seizure of weapon in plain view even though appellant was handcuffed and under the control of the officers was lawful because there were other occupants in the house who were not handcuffed and who would have had access to the weapon