would lead a reasonable man of caution to believe that certain items may be contraband ony concerning facts which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the gun was contraband. For example, there was no evidence that the officers knew appellant to be a convicted felon, that the shotgun was immediately recognizable as being illegal (i.e., sawed off shotgun), or that the shotgun was suspected of having been used in a crime which the officers were investigating. Furthermore, since appellant was arrested outside of the apartment and immediately handcuffed, and the officers entered the apartment only to check on the welfare of the small child, the safety of the officers was not a concern which would justify seizure of the gun. Compare Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975)(<HOLDING>); Braham v. State, 724 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA
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 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 seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine where there was probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest