COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 27, 2009���� David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals	NOTICE
	This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.� A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.�

Appeal No.�	2008AP1640-CR	Cir. Ct. No.� 2007CF49
STATE OF WISCONSIN���			IN COURT OF APPEALS
			DISTRICT III
State of Wisconsin, ��������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ���� v. Kenneth E. Ridener, ��������� Defendant-Appellant.

����������� APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Marathon County:� gregory b. huber, Judge.� Affirmed.�

����������� Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ. �

�1������� PER CURIAM.   Kenneth Ridener appeals an order[1] denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to three search warrants.� The first two warrants, issued in Marathon County, erroneously identified the place to be searched.� The third warrant, issued in Wood County, consists of the judge�s signature on the application for the warrant, with no specific direction to the officer executing the warrant regarding the objects or places to be searched and seized.� Ridener contends these defects invalidate the warrants and compel suppression of the evidence.� Because we conclude the defects are technical irregularities that do not invalidate the warrants, we affirm the order.� See Wis. Stat. � 968.22.[2]

�2������� After the parties filed their initial briefs, we directed them to file supplemental briefs regarding recent developments in the common law.� Upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude this case is controlled by State v. Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, 762 N.W.2d 795.� In Rogers, this court upheld the search of a vehicle where the warrant identified the wrong vehicle, but the application for the warrant identified the correct vehicle.� Two holdings in Rogers are dispositive.� First, a warrant containing incorrect information still passes constitutional muster if there is no reasonable probability the wrong premises would be searched.� Id., �13.� Second, when reviewing that question, the court may utilize the application for the warrant and the executing officer�s personal knowledge to overcome incorrect information in the warrant.� Id., �14.�

�3������� Ridener argues Rogers does not apply because the application in Rogers was attached to the warrant and incorporated by reference.� That argument fails for two reasons.� First, Rogers holds that attaching and incorporating the affidavit is sufficient to cure the defect in the warrant, not that it is necessary.� Rogers cites People v. Rodriguez, 680 N.Y.S.2d 2 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998), to support its holding.� Rodriguez does not indicate the application for the warrant was attached or incorporated by reference.� Second, the facts of this case are stronger than the facts presented in Rogers.� It is not necessary to consider the applications for the warrants in this case to conclude there is no reasonable probability the executing officer would search the wrong premises.�

�4������� The first page of the first Marathon County warrant recites that Detective Cord Buckner applied to search:

1301A Townline Road, City of Wausau, County of Marathon, Wisconsin, occupied by Kenneth Ridener, and more particularly described as:�

An individual apartment located within an apartment complex known as Terrace Heights.� There are two entrances on the north side of the complex, both from Townline Road.� The west entrance is the closest to apartment 1301A; 1301A is located on the north end of the complex and is adjacent to Townline Road.� 1301A appears on the west side of the unit.� There are entrances to 1301A on the west and north sides.� 1301A is a lower unit with tan siding and partial brick facing.

The second page of the warrant commands the executing officer to �search the barn located on the above-referenced property �.�� There is obviously no barn located in Ridener�s apartment.� There is no reasonable probability that he would search the wrong premises based on the scrivener�s error.�

�5������� The second warrant describes the place to be searched as �A Sony Ericcson [sic] �Walkman� flip style cell phone� stored at the police department, but authorizes the search of a barn.� Again, there is no danger that Buckner would mistakenly search a barn as a result of the defect in the warrant.�

�6������� The Wood County warrant describes nine particular pieces of computer equipment in great detail, and describes the analysis that will be performed by a computer specialist.� Although the warrant lacks language specifically authorizing the officer to conduct the search, there is no other reasonable interpretation of the judge�s signature than that the judge approved the request to have the computers and devices analyzed by a computer specialist.� The computer equipment was located in the sheriff�s department, having already been seized.� There is no danger that the officer executing the warrant would search the wrong premises and the failure to include a specific authorization to search constitutes a technical irregularity under these circumstances that does not affect Ridener�s substantial rights.� See Wis. Stat. � 968.22.

����������� By the Court.�Order affirmed.

����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.

---

[1]  This court granted Ridener�s petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order.�

[2]  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.