be searched. Tex. Const. art. I, § 9; Tex.Code Crim. PROC. Ann. arts. 1.06, 18.04 (Vernon 1977). A warrant that does not contain the place to be searched, the items to be seized, or the person alleged to be in charge of the premises is not invalid provided that the warrant incorporates by reference a sufficiently specific affidavit to support it. See Turner v. State, 886 S.W.2d 859, 864 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1994, pet. refd); Gonzales v. State, 743 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. refd). It is well-settled law in Texas that a description contained in an affidavit limits and controls the description contained in the warrant. Rios v. State, 901 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1995, no pet.); see also Faulkner v. State, 537 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (<HOLDING>). The failure to physically attach the
holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that affidavit incorporated by reference and stapled to warrant could be used to aid description found in 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 that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant