such a hypertechnical approach is inconsistent with the “Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to warrants.” Id. Defendant, however, argues that what appears in the affidavit is a grammatical error inasmuch as it is unclear whether possession and control refer to the premises or the cocaine. She contends that courts have held that where grammatical errors are concerned, the problem becomes practical and not hypertechnical. See e.g., McCullagh v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 177 F.3d 1307, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (interpreting an American Stock Exchange constitution and finding that the reading adopted by AMEX fits the grammatical rule that “modifiers should be placed next to that which they modify”); United States v. Balint, 201 F.3d 928, 933 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Biocic, 928 F.2d 112, 114
holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute holding that supreme court has held that when interpreting a statute to glean congressional intent verb tense and grammar is significant and not merely technical holding that in cases of ambiguity we may resort to subsequent amendments in order to glean the legislatures intent recognizing that in interpreting a statute our primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature