to reconsider Bartholomew, wherein we stated that if a warrant’s particularity depends upon an affidavit of probable cause, the affidavit cannot be filed under seal. 221 F.3d at 428-429. Because the warrant application here ultimately referred to the requisite information, the government contends that we should view the misstep here as a “clerical error,” and not a search pursuant to an invalid warrant. Reply Brief for United States 9. We are not impressed by the government’s position, for four reasons. First, the government’s arguments cannot be reconciled with the plain text of the Constitution. Documents that do not include a particular description of items to be seized are so facially deficient that they do not qualify as “warrants” at all. See Groh, 540 U.S. at 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (<HOLDING>). Applying that rule, we conclude that the
holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless  holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate holding it was reasonably practicable to obtain warrant to search defendants vehicle where courts were open on day of warrantless search and judges were available to sign warrant