See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.03(c); One Hundred Ninety-One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars, 827 S.W.2d at 432. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s second issue. Y. Appellant’s Constitutional Challenges In his third and fourth issues, appellant contends that because the warrant and subsequent seizure were invalid, the seizure violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Because we have concluded that the warrant was valid despite its title and that the proper procedures were followed in executing the seizure, appellant’s due process rights under federal and state law were not violated. See Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 362-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198, 117 S.Ct. 1556,
holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search holding that where information obtained from illegal warrantless search of a briefcase was used to establish probable cause for the warrant to search briefcase evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant was properly suppressed holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that doctrine does not violate due process