In Groh v. Ramirez (2004) 540 U.S. 551, an officer submitted a detailed affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant authorizing a search of a ranch for specified weapons. (Id. at p. 554.) The officer presented the documents to a magistrate with a warrant form that the officer had also completed. (Ibid.) The magistrate signed the warrant form. (Ibid.) The warrant form did not identify any of the items that the officer intended to seize. (Ibid.) In the portion of the warrant form that called for a description of the person or property to be seized, the officer had typed a description of the two story, blue house to be searched rather than the alleged stockpile of firearms. (Ibid.) The warrant did not incorporate by reference the itemized list of items to be seized that was contained in the application. (Id. at pp. 554 555.) The Supreme Court held, "'the warrant . . . was deficient in particularity because it provided no description of the type of evidence sought.' . . .The fact that the application adequately described the 'things to be seized' does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity. . . . We do not say that the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant from cross-referencing other documents. Indeed, most Courts of Appeals have held that a court may construe a warrant with reference to a supporting application or affidavit if the warrant uses appropriate words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant. But in this case the warrant did not incorporate other documents by reference, nor did either the affidavit or the application . . . accompany the warrant." (Groh, supra, 540 U.S. at pp. 557 558.) The court in Groh rejected the argument that even though the warrant was invalid, the search was reasonable under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. (Groh, supra, 540 U.S. at p. 558.) The court stated, "this warrant did not simply omit a few items from a list of many to be seized, or misdescribe a few of several items. Nor did it make what fairly could be characterized as a mere technical mistake or typographical error. Rather, in the space set aside for a description of the items to be seized, the warrant stated that the items consisted of a 'single dwelling residence . . . blue in color.' In other words, the warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all. In this respect the warrant was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as 'warrantless' within the meaning of our case law." (Ibid.)