What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfonso Steve JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-2633.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 29, 1988.
Stephen P. McCue, Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellant.
David N. Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty. (William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., with him on the brief), Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge.
Defendant Alfonso Steve Jimenez (Jimenez) challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun seized from the trunk of his car by police officers during an accident investigation. The court held that the shotgun was lawfully seized because it was in plain view and would have inevitably been discovered during an inventory search. We affirm.
I
Jimenez’ car was totalled in a two car accident in Albuquerque. Police officers Daniel Torgrimson (Torgrimson) and Raymond Schultz (Schultz) were called to the scene at about 11:30 p.m. on March 2, 1987. Two occupants of Jimenez’ car and two or three occupants of the other car were seriously injured. Torgrimson and Schultz called a rescue squad, two ambulances and two wreckers.
Jimenez’ automobile had been hit behind the back doors and the trunk lid was bent up away from the body. The trunk was locked. II R. 9, 15, 31. The damage to the trunk created a gap approximately 5 to 12 inches high and 10 inches wide so that the inside of the trunk was visible. II R. 10, 32. After the rescue squad arrived, Schultz inspected both automobiles for “gasoline or battery acid or anything leaking from the vehicles which might cause some type of hazard_” II R. 30-31. Using his flashlight (there were no lights in the trunk), Schultz looked into the trunk of Jimenez’ car and saw “about 90 percent of a shotgun which had been altered or sawed off.” Id. at 31-32. Schultz never asked Jimenez for permission to look into the trunk. A jack was lying across the front of the gun. Schultz testified that by its positioning he could tell that the “whole barrel wasn’t there, however, [he] couldn’t tell exactly how much was there.” II R. 40. Schultz reached through the gap and took the gun out of the trunk. There were rounds in the magazine and the serial numbers had been filed off. II R. 33, 35-36.
The Albuquerque Police Department has a policy of inventorying the contents of towed vehicles and the contents of the interior of Jimenez’ car were inventoried. II R. 14, 17, 34-36. Trunks are also inventoried if the keys are present and the owner gives permission. The trunk of Jimenez’ car was either locked or inoperable because of the damage and was never opened and its contents were not inventoried. II R. 41.
One of the passengers of Jimenez’ car, Romero, was known to Officer Torgrimson. Torgrimson also had information that occupants of Jimenez’ car had been throwing objects over a building wall into a parking lot on the night of the accident. II R. 20. Torgrimson asked Schultz and another officer to “look for evidence in the car” and to check the vehicle. II R. 22. Torgrimson was not near the automobile when the gun was seized and neither he nor Schultz knew that it was in the trunk. II R. 22, 42.
The trial court denied Jimenez’ motion to suppress. In compliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e), the court made the following findings:
I feel that this was a seizure which was in plain view. I will find that an accident occurred in which the defendant’s vehicle was involved, that the lid of the trunk which may or may not have remained locked, was bent in such a way that it permitted an officer who was reasonably examining the automobile to determine how the accident happened, to determine whether or not there was property that should be inventoried.
The lid was damaged in such a way that it permitted the officer to look into the trunk. And when he shown his light, his flashlight into there, he saw this shotgun. I feel that the — and I will find that the shotgun was in plain view and that there was probable cause to associate the property with some criminal activity because of the configuration of the shotgun.
11 R. 54-55 (emphasis added). The court also held that the shotgun would have inevitably been discovered during an inventory of the trunk. II R. 55.
After the court denied the motion to suppress, Jimenez entered a conditional plea of guilty to an information charging him with being an accessory after the fact, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 (1986) in connection with unlawful possession of the sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun, see 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and § 5871. I R. 14-15. Jimenez was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with all but six months suspended, he was placed on probation for a period of three years, and a special assessment of $50 was imposed. II R. 15. He reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion.
il
Analysis
“When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court’s findings of fact must be accepted unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellison, 791 F.2d 821, 822 (10th Cir.1986) (citing United States v. Leach, 749 F.2d 592 (10th Cir 1984)). Since the government prevailed, we view the evidence at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Comosona, 848 F.2d 1110, 1111 (10th Cir.1988). Having considered the record and the trial court’s findings, we hold that the plain view doctrine provided a proper ground for seizure of the sawed-off shotgun and that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
We' note initially that this case involves a seizure and not a search. A search occurs when there is an intrusion on a legitimate expectation of privacy. See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3324, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983). See also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469, 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1984). Merely inspecting the parts of an object that come into view lawfully does not constitute a search. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1152, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). See also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738-740 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1541-1542 n. 4, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1982) (plurality opinion). Schultz was routinely inspecting Jimenez’ automobile when the sawed-off shotgun came into view. No search occurred. The question is whether the seizure of the shotgun which followed violated the Fourth Amendment.
In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2039, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall JJ.), the plurality view was expressed that the plain view doctrine permits the warrantless seizure by police of private possessions where three requirements are satisfied. The requirements have been stated as follows:
First, the police officer must lawfully make an “initial intrusion” or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area. Id., at 465-468 [91 S.Ct. at 2037-2038.] Second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, he may not “know in advance the location of [certain] evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain-view doctrine only as a pretext. Id., at 470 [91 S.Ct. at 2040.] Finally, it must be “immediately apparent” to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Id., at 466 [91 S.Ct. at 2038.]
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 737, 103 S.Ct. at 1540. See also United States v. Justice, 835 F.2d 1310, 1312 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting United States v. Gabriel, 715 F.2d 1447, 1449-1450 (10th Cir.1983)).
The first requirement of the doctrine— that the initial intrusion be lawful or that the officer properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area — is clearly satisfied. The trial court found that the trunk was bent in such a way that “it permitted an officer who was reasonably examining the automobile to determine how the accident happened, to determine whether or not there was property that should be inventoried.” II R. 54 (emphasis added). The record supports this finding. Schultz said that he was checking both vehicles for gasoline or an overturned battery when he discovered the sawed-off shotgun. II R. 30-32. He was investigating the accident and was lawfully in a position from which he could view the inside of the trunk. Moreover, the use of the flashlight to illuminate Jimenez’ trunk “trenched upon no right secured to [Jimenez] by the Fourth Amendment.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 739-740, 103 S.Ct. at 1541-1542; see also United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 748, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927).
The record also supports the court’s findings on the second prong of the plain view doctrine which requires inadvertent discovery. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 737, 103 S.Ct. at 1540. The court found that the officer was reasonably examining the car to determine how the accident happened and whether property should be inventoried; the trunk lid was damaged so that he could look into the trunk and he flashed his light into it and saw the shotgun. II R. 54-55. Schultz testified that he was “looking to see if there was either a gas leakage or batteries which had turned over.” II R. 33. He further testified that until he looked into the trunk he had no reason to believe that there was a gun there. II R. 42. The record clearly supports the conclusion that Schultz discovered the sawed-off shotgun inadvertently. .
Jimenez argues that Torgrimson knew Romero and that Torgrimson ordered Schultz to check the vehicle and that the plain view doctrine is being employed here as a pretext. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 737, 103 S.Ct. at 1540. But the record does not in any way indicate that the discovery of the sawed-off shotgun was not inadvertent or that the plain view doctrine is being employed here only as a pretext. In fact, Torgrimson never looked into the trunk himself; he was attending to other matters. II R. 22. Although he asked Schultz to check the vehicle, see II R. 22, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that he or Schultz knew of the location of the sawed-off shotgun and intended to seize it. II R. 22, 42. The sawed-off shotgun was discovered inadvertently.
Finally, there is evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that “there was probable cause to associate the property with some criminal activity because of the configuration of the shotgun.” Hicks, 107 S.Ct. at 1149 (probable cause is required to invoke plain view doctrine); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 730, 738, 103 S.Ct. at 1537, 1541 (the seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity). Schultz testified that when he looked into the trunk he could see 90 percent of the gun. Although he could not see exactly how long the barrel was “per se because there was a jack lying across the front of the gun, he knew the whole barrel wasn’t there. II R. 40. Schultz said that he knew “by the way the jack was laying that the barrel was not of normal length.” II R. 45. Schultz said that when he “looked in immediately, he could see the receiver, the barrel next to the receiver and the stock that had been cut off.” II R. at 44-45. Schultz knew as a policeman that it was “against the law to have sawed-off shotguns. . . .” II R. 45.
“[Pjrobable cause is a flexible, common sense standard.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742, 103 S.Ct. at 1543. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution having a belief that certain items may be contraband, or stolen property, or useful as evidence of a crime; “it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742, 103 S.Ct. at 1543. The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical concept. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). While Schultz could not see the entire barrel of the gun, there is sufficient evidence that he could tell, before he reached into the trunk, that the stock had been cut off and the barrel was not of normal length. The court’s finding that there was probable cause to associate the property with some criminal activity because of the configuration of the shotgun is not clearly errroneous. II R. at 54-55.
The sawed-off shotgun was in plain view and was lawfully seized from the damaged trunk of Jimenez’ car. We uphold the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress on this basis and need not address the court’s alternative holding that the seizure was lawful under the inevitable discovery doctrine. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 440-441, 448, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2507-2508, 2511 (1983).
AFFIRMED.
. The trial judge’s findings on the motion to suppress were stated in detail and in full corn-pliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e) and have facilitated consideration of this appeal.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0