In People v. Brown, 96 N.Y.2d 80, (2001) one of the issues the Court of Appeals addressed was the validity of the seizure of guns that were recovered, which were not items enumerated in the search warrant. The Court applied the plain view doctrine and held that the items were admissible. In Brown, a .357 magnum was found wrapped in cloth and hidden in a jar underneath the defendant's bathroom sink; a revolver, wrapped in plastic, was found inside a floor vent in the rear bedroom of the defendant's trailer. (Brown, supra, at 83.) The warrant at issue authorized a search for a tractor ignition key; a VIN plate, a steel chain, a top link bar and any "other property the possession of which would be considered contraband." The investigation in Brown related to an allegation of a stolen tractor. The portion of the warrant in Brown which authorized the search for "any other property the possession of which would be considered contraband" was deemed overbroad and severed from the valid portion of the warrant. The Brown Court applied the plain view doctrine of People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106 (1993), to determine if the guns were admissible even though they were not specifically listed in the warrant. Thus, the three elements of the plain view doctrine which could potentially permit admissibility of these items were analyzed: (1) whether the police were lawfully in a position to observe the item; (2) whether the police had lawful access to the item itself when they seized it; and (3) whether the incriminating character of the item was immediately apparent. (Brown, supra, at 89.) Therefore, the issue was whether the police were authorized to be where they were when they observed these guns. The Brown Court answered these questions affirmatively since the police were acting pursuant to the warrant which gave them this authority.