In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990), the Supreme Court abandoned the inadvertence requirement, reasoning that it is better to look to objective standards of conduct rather than considering the subjective state of mind of the officer. Horton, 496 U.S. at 130, 138, 110 S. Ct. at 2304, 2308-09. In line with Horton, the Court have stated that the "plain view" doctrine requires only that: (1) law enforcement officials have a right to be where they are; (2) it be immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence, that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity. In determining whether the officer had a right to be where he was, the Supreme Court requires that "the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed." Horton, 496 U.S. at 136, 110 S. Ct. at 2308.