How have the courts interpreted the plain view doctrine in a search warrant application?

Stanislaw contends that the County defendants conducted an illegal search of his home. Specifically, he argues that the search exceeded the scope of the warrant. The warrant provided for (1) the weapon used in the incident, (2) indicia of ownership of the property, and (3) other deadly weapons. Stanislaw bases his argument on the fact that the officers seized a glass vial containing a greyish-white powder. The district court found that the vial was properly seized under the plain view doctrine. We agree. During a valid search pursuant to a warrant, the officers discovered the glass vial in plain view. The incriminating character of the powdery substance was immediately apparent. Therefore, the vial was properly seized. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990).

3. Bail