Under the plain-view doctrine, police officers properly executing a lawfully issued search warrant may seize incriminating evidence not described in the warrant if they discover the item in plain sight. Evidence so obtained is admissible in court. Likewise, this note argues that electronically intercepted conversations about crimes not mentioned in a properly executed surveillance order should be admissible as evidence in the prosecution of those crimes. Further, the evidence should be admissible without unnecessary procedural prerequisites or restrictions. Such procedures and restrictions further no significant fourth-amendment or individual privacy concerns, considering the current state of the plain-view doctrine and the substantial privacy safeguards required in all surveillance statutes. Electronic surveillance statutes that impose limits on the admissibility of plain-view interceptions place unnecessary burdens on law enforcement and should be reformed. 262 footnotes