Footnote omitted.)See ORS 133.585; State v. Bennett, 301 Or. 299, 303, 721 P.2d 1375 (1986); State v. Paradis, 46 Or. App. 625,627, 612 P.2d 753 (1980); 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.10, 152 (1978). The state presented evidence that the police were aware that drug dealers commonly keep drugs in safes and that defendant's alleged sales of drugs had been made in the bedroom of his residence.

The reported drug-related cases involving film canisters are virtually legion. E.g., Kaiser v. State, 24 Ark. App. 19, 746 S.W.2d 559, rev'd on other grounds 296 Ark. 125, 752 S.W.2d 271 (Ark. 1988); State in Interest of A.R., 216 N.J. Super. 280 (App.Div. 1987); Com. v. Kendrick, 340 Pa. Super. 563, 490 A.2d 923 (1985); State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 (Iowa), cert. den. 469 U.S. 830, 105 S.Ct. 116, 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984), superseded by statute/rule 412 N.W.2d 568 (Iowa 1987); People v. Holloway, 416 Mich. 288, 330 N.W.2d 405 (1982), cert. den. 461 U.S. 917, 103 S.Ct. 1900, 77 L.Ed.2d 288 (1983); State v. Anderson, 316 N.W.2d 105 (S.D. 1982); State v. Paradis, 46 Or. App. 625, 612 P.2d 753 (1980); State v. Olson, 46 Or. App. 373, 611 P.2d 695 (1980). In order to satisfy the requirements of the "plain view" exception it was originally held necessary that it be "immediately apparent" to the police that the item in plain view is evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.