to incorporate the affidavit,” and that preprinted language like that used here is insufficient. 920 F.2d 1028, 1032-33 (D.C.Cir.1990). The government concedes that Maxwell is indistinguishable from this case, and that this panel is without authority to overturn that prior decision. Appellee's Br. at 27 n.7; see United States v. Kanchanalak, 192 F.3d 1037, 1038 n. 1 (D.C.Cir. 1999). Thus, although at least one court has taken a path different from that of Maxwell, see United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1116-17 (2d Cir.1993), we cannot rely on the affidavit to constrain the language of the warrants. 3 . Pindell also contends that the plain view doctrine is inapplicable because the warrant applications did not list the notebooks even though the police knew of their re 38, 1543-44 (<HOLDING>). 6 . See United States v. Jones, 187 F.3d 210,
holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view holding that the criminality of a knotted opaque party balloon found in plain view during a traffic stop was immediately apparent because the officer had probable cause to believe that the balloon contained an illegal substance holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime holding that the search of a balloon was justified under the plain view exception where the contraband nature of the balloon  was immediately apparent to the officer who seized it