I copied the following from:
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/legjun94.htm
---
Bob Farb, in his excellent text, Arrest, Search and Investigation in North Carolina, Institute of Government (2nd edition) makes the following comments on this case and the plain-view doctrine:
While searching for a particular item named in the warrant to be seized, officers may search everywhere they reasonably may find the objects the warrant permits them to seize. Officers also may seize other property that they find "inadvertently" in plain view, if they have probable cause to believe it is evidence of a crime, even if it is not related to the crime under investigation. For example, while searching for stolen television sets, officers may seize illegal drugs they see in plain view. Officers seize an object "inadvertently" if, before the warrant was issued, they did not have probable cause to seize it and did not specifically intend to search for and seize it. Officers' authority to seize objects in plain view under these circumstances is known as the plain-view doctrine.
So, let's sum up what we know about the plain-view doctrine.
1. First, you must be in a place in which you have a right to be: you must make a valid intrusion into an area protected by the Constitution. Prior valid intrusions include:
a. search incident to arrest
b. stop and frisk
c. executing a search warrant
d. hot pursuit
e. exigent circumstances (see G.S. 15A-285).
2. You must actually "see" the item (although the other four senses - taste, touch, smell, hearing - can often be used to establish probable cause - Farb, Arrest, pp. 80-81).
3. You must have probable cause to believe that the object you see is subject to seizure and this must be "immediately apparent" to you without moving the item (unless you have justification to move the object other than just to determine if it is seizable).
4. Your discovery of the item of evidence must be inadvertent - you had no probable cause to believe the item would be where you discovered it.
Two examples should make this reasonably clear. Suppose you are in a home by consent to talk to an irate homeowner about a barking dog. You see a stereo you reasonably believe is stolen. Well, you have a right to be where you are; your discovery is inadvertent; but it is not immediately apparent to you that the item is stolen. You have no separate justification to move the stereo to look for the serial number, and so, without permission, you cannot.
A second example is the execution of a search warrant for a small, easily concealable item, such as drugs. If you wish, while in the home, you can move the stereo to look for drugs concealed behind or under the unit. That reveals the serial numbers. You may then write them down and check to see if the item is stolen. As you had a right to look behind the stereo for drugs, then the serial numbers are in plain view for Constitutional purposes.
---