I have a case on intake with a new (for me) search warrant issue.

Search warrant Affidavit makes reference to attached reports and affidavit.

Assuming, and I am still looking, that the reports referenced are the police reports. Does this bring the attached reports within the "four corners" of the Search Warrant Affidavit?

From Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 327-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994):

"The search warrant incorporates the affidavit by refernece. Attached to the sworn-to and signed affidavit are appendices A and B. Each appendix is entitled 'Affidavit for evidence search warrant.'

Generally, incorporating the appendices to an affidavit by reference would be preferred. It does not invariably follow that absent such incorporation the affidavit [supporting a search warrant] must fail. Cf. U.S. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 561 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1054 (1993) (a warrant does not necessarily fail absent incorporation by reference of the affidavit); see also Commonwealth v. Truax, 490 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Mass. 1986) (affidavit valid even though pages attached to warrant were not signed or sworn to). The Supreme Court has cautioned that 'affidavits for search warrants . . . must be tested and interpreted by magistrates for courts in a common sense and realistic fashiion.

"There was testimony elicited at a motion to suppress hearing conducted during trial that the issuing magistrate essentially considered the attached appendices as part and parcel of the warrant affidavit. The appendices were physically attached to the affidavit, and the matter contained therein is an obvious continuation of that paragraph of the affidavit setting forth the basis for probable cause. . . . Under these unusual circumstances it is apparent that the magistrate considered the affiant's oath to extend not *328 only to matters contained on the face of the affidavit page, but also to the information contained in the attached appendices. The trial court could reasonably have concluded that the appendices were implicitly incorporated within the affidavit. Appellant's first point of error is overruled"

*2 [6] [7] [8] With regard to the second issue that the narrative report was either expressly or impliedly incorporated into a sworn report, we note that an unsigned document may be incorporated by reference into a signed document. Castroville Airport, Inc. v. City of Castroville, 974 S.W.2d 207, 211 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). No specific words are required to incorporate a document as long as the signed document plainly refers to another document. See In re C & H News Co., 133 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.).


In the present case, the initial sworn document, entitled the DIC-23 form, incorporated the �offense report, DIC 23, 24, 25, book-in report.� The reports were listed as being 21 pages. It is clear that the narrative report attached to the DIC-23 form is part of the �offense report� that the officer sought to incorporate.


[9] [10] Even if this were not the case, a document may be incorporated by implication, without any specific words of incorporation. See Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 327-28 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). In this case, the narrative report is implicitly incorporated as it was submitted with the DIC-23 form and it plainly is a continuation of the DIC-23 form. That form was sworn to on May 9, 2007, and the narrative report indicates that Williams was arrested around midnight on May 8, 2007. All the forms clearly reference these times and dates. The arrest and booking pages show Williams was booked into jail at 3:05 a.m. on May 9, 2007. Further, Officer Myers' name and Williams' name appear throughout the documents. We find that the narrative report was impliedly incorporated into the sworn document. See Barnes, 876 S.W.2d at 328. Issue Two is sustained.


Texas Department Of Public Safety v. Williams 2009 WL 4933188, 2 (Tex.App.-El Paso) (Tex.App.-El Paso,2009)