If being in plain sight means opening a day planner at the target’s desk and reading what’s therein penciled, I believe you’d be correct.
But if a computer file is at issue and that file’s interpreted data were not covered by the original warrant, the answer might fall differently. If to interpret and appreciate what is in such a file requires a sophisticated, modern computer with multiple software elements from different vendors, it would arguably seem no longer to qualify as being in plain sight, even if it’s thumb drive container lay in the same desk as the day planner.
Yes, that was my interpretation of plain sight. Would have to examine the application for the search warrant and see what was covered by it to be as accurate as possible. The plain sight doctrine is subject to interpretation and therefore we use the term might be. If you are searching for intellectual property and that is listed in the warrant, I say they are covered. If it was “documents” it could very well be it is not covered as a file of bytes may not be considered a document per se. I’ve been out of that arena for many years now so my personal knowledge is very limited on computer law history. Thanks for the note.