Based on the evidence in the record, Ihnen presented sufficient facts and circumstances demonstrating his belief that the pill bottle he saw in plain view was of "incriminating character." See Thomas v. State, No. 14-16-00230-CR, 2017 WL 2484366, *at 6-8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 8, 2017, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that second prong of plain view doctrine was met where pill bottle had no label and officer testified to her experience that "individuals often 'carry their narcotics within pill bottles' and without a label or a name on it"); Goonan, 334 S.W.3d at 361 (holding that second prong of plain view doctrine was met where pill bottle had old label made out to someone other than appellant). We conclude that the pill bottle was legally seized under the plain view doctrine.