With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a search warrant contains an erroneous address, the warrant may nevertheless be valid “where there are other elements of description sufficiently particular to identify the premises to be searched” in the supporting affidavit and application. Lester v. State, 278 Ga. App. 247, 249 (1) (628 SE2d 674) (2006). See also State v. Hicks, 269 Ga. App. 741, 743 (605 SE2d 34) (2004). Significantly, however, a court is entitled to construe a warrant in conjunction with the supporting affidavit and application only “if the warrant uses appropriate words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant.” (Emphasis omitted.) Battle v. State, 275 Ga. App. 301, 302 (620 SE2d 506) (2005), quoting Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 557-558 (II) (124 SC 1284, 157 LE2d 1068) (2004) (<HOLDING>). Here, the search warrant did not contain

A: holding that an incorporated affidavit did not provide particularity because the government offered no evidence that the affidavit or any copies were ever attached to the warrant or were present at the time of the search
B: holding that affidavit supported probable cause determination when the affidavit stated only that an occupant of defendants home subscribed to child pornography egroup
C: holding that officers possession of affidavit at searched premises without leaving a copy with the occupant was insufficient to allow for consideration of the affidavit in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrant
D: 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
C.