She's listed because it's her residence. Read the warrant, and compare the language in it about her to the language of the other people suspected of using the building.

She is listed as part of the "and/or on the person or persons of", I did.

Note how there's no criminal history associated with her, and none of her behavior is a predicate to the warrant. Compare to what the warrant says about the other occupants of the building.

I'm not sure you read the warrant correctly. They clearly state they've seen Taylor's car in front of the 2424 Elliott address. That wasn't the address issued for the warrant. This is an implication being made. The warrant is issued for 3003 Springfield.

Maybe go reread it.

You helpfully linked to it upthread. I'm comfortable that I've summarized it accurately.

You've summarized it inaccurately unfortunately. Taylor was part of the warrant, not simply because it was her address. This has been publicly put to bed:

"The connection with Glover is an important piece in this puzzle. The narcotics investigation was not just going after Glover, but several people believed to be involved in a drug trafficking ring. Police had reason to believe that Breonna Taylor had been involved because they believed that packages were being delivered to her apartment which Glover picked up and he said that she was in possession of several thousand dollars that belonged to him." [0]

This is readily apparent in the warrant.

And another, just to clarify. [1]

[0] https://clashdaily.com/2020/08/report-breonna-taylor-extensi... [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report...

Obviously she's "a part of the warrant". It's her house. I don't know what "Clash Daily" is; I read the original source, which you provided. It comported with what I'd already read about the case, which is that Taylor wasn't the target of the investigation. See also the NYT's coverage, asserting that Jamarcus Glover was the target.

They explicitly call out her car being at a different address, not her own, in the warrant. This implicates her with the other two. She is clearly a target of the warrant. You can find validation of this in the warrant and the follow on reports done by the police department. At this point you're pushing a false narrative pretty hard.

She's a target of the warrant. It's her house. Glover was using her car. Of course she's a target of the warrant. Her guilt or innocence in drug trafficking had nothing to do with the warrant's issuance. She's not the target of the investigation. If I'd been renting a room in her house, I'd be a target of the warrant too.

Sorry, but she was the soft target of the investigation. As you (hopefully) know her house was only one of the warrants executed on that day.

From NPR: "The purpose of the raid on Taylor's home was to find evidence linking her to an ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a convicted felon with a history of drug trafficking, according to court documents.

Police didn't find any.

Now it appears prosecutors attempted to tie Taylor to a life of crime after her death." [0]

Now color me sceptical, but that appears to be an interesting argument if she's not a target as you continue to incorrectly posit.

Please top spreading misinformation.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908625259/prosecutors-plea-of...

Your own quote refutes the rest of your comment.