terms into the warrant, at least where, as here, the affidavit was provided to the searchers. Cf Wuagneux, 683 F.2d at 1350 n. 6 (finding that “the searchers were adequately informed of the limitations on the search given their instruction by [the affiant agent], their opportunity to read the affidavit, and its presence at the search site” even though “it was neither incorporated into the warrant by express reference nor attached to an accompanying warrant”). Warrants have survived particularity challenges even where they have called for the seizure of many categories of items. Although the warrants at issue here encompass many types of records, they sufficiently describe what is within their terms. See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-81, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Wuagneux, 683 F.2d at 1350 n. 5 (finding, in
holding that the inclusion of the phrase together with other fruits instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown did not render search warrants impermissibly general where it was clear from the context that the term crime in the warrants referred only to the crime of false pretenses with respect to the sale of one specific real estate lot holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding prosecutor has discretion to charge defendant under general crime even though more specific crime exists holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder holding that the phrase together with other fruits instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown did not render a warrant general where context made clear that the reference was to false pretenses crime