I concur in the result of the lead opinion. I write separately to emphasize that the dissenting opinions are inconsistent with the reasoning in Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321; 107 S Ct 1149; 94 L Ed 2d 347 (1987), and this Court’s opinion in People v Champion, 452 Mich 92; 549 NW2d 849 (1996). If one believes that the initial seizure of the photographs was valid under the plain feel exception, then the subsequent examination of those photographs was also valid. Hicks, supra at 326; Champion, supra at 105-106, 117. However, I caution that if Champion is construed too broadly, it would be appropriate to revisit the proper limits of that decision in the future.