(dissenting).
[¶29.] The Fourth Amendment directs that “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. As a general rule, “open-ended” or “general” warrants are constitutionally prohibited. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 92 n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 338, 342 n. 4, 62 L.Ed.2d 238, 246 n. 4 (1979) (citations omitted). Thus, particularity in a search warrant is required to ensure that the executing officer can reasonably ascertain and identify the persons or places authorized to be searched and the objects to be seized. “To protect the right of privacy from arbitrary police intrusion, ... nothing should be left to the discretion of the searcher in executing the warrant.” People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26, 31 (1975) (citations omitted).
[¶ 30.] When granting a search warrant, our state and federal constitutions also require that sufficient probable cause exist “to believe that the property described in the warrant will be found at the specified premises and in [the] possession of the persons so described.” State v. Sims, 75 N.J. 337, 382 A.2d 638, 643 (1978). This probable cause must be “particularized to every person or place to be searched;” therefore, “a warrant authorizing the search of premises does not authorize officers to search an individual merely because that person is present on the premises[.]” State v. Ayala, 762 P.2d 1107, 1111 (Utah Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 773 P.2d 45 (Utah 1989). See also Lippert v. State, 664 S.W.2d 712, 721 n. 12 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (stating that “ ‘[b]efore an officer places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate grounds for doing so.’ ”).
‘A person’s mere presence at the scene of suspected criminal activity does not entitle police officers to search that individual. ... Absent some independent factors tying [the defendant] to the illegal activities on the premises, it was no more likely he was engaged in the criminal enterprise than that he was an innocent visitor on the premises.’
Id. at 720 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, an “all persons” search warrant is “scrutinized strictly on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the specificity requirement of the [F]ourth [A]mendment is not violated.” Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 522 Pa. 138, 560 A.2d 140, 142 (1989). In determining if this specificity requirement is met
[T]he question is whether there is sufficient particularity in the probable cause sense, that is, whether the information supplied the magistrate supports the conclusion that it is probable anyone in the described place when the warrant is executed is involved in the criminal activity in such a way as to have evidence thereof on his person. If the evidence tendered to the magistrate supports such a conclusion, then the search-all-persons-present warrant is unobjectionable. If the evidence does not support such a conclusion, then the searches of those present find no justification in the search warrant.
People v. Johnson, 805 P.2d 1156, 1160 (Colo.App.1990) (quoting 2 Wayne LaFave, Search & Seizure § 4.5(e) at 231 (1978)).
[¶ 31.] This case involves the unique situation where a warrant is issued to search a specified place and “[a]ll persons arriving at this residence during the execution of the search warrant and the vehicles that they arrive in.” This is unique because,
[i]f there is probable cause to believe that a certain individual has on his person the evidence, fruits, or instrumental-ities of crime, it would be an unusual case in which there was not also proba*422ble cause to believe that this individual was a participant in the criminal activity under investigation. Thus, the more usual procedure is simply to arrest that person and then search him incident to the arrest.
2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.5 at 89 (1978). As these unique situations become more frequent, it becomes increasingly important to protect the public’s Fourth Amendment guarantees. Thus, there must be a showing of “individualized probable cause” that the premises were confined to illegal activity and that there was a substantial probability that all persons present at the time of execution would possess the items sought. The “paramount concern” is whether, at its inception, the warrant, including the showing on which it was based, satisfies fundamental constitutional requirements, including the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we must look at the information available to the magistrate who issued the “all persons” search warrant. See State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658, 662 (Iowa 1995) (providing that “ ‘a defective warrant cannot be resuscitated by consideration of additional information now available or even of information available when the warrant was obtained but which was not communicated to the magistrate.’ ”) (quoting 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.1(d) (2d ed.1987)).
[¶ 32.] Here, Jackson was not a particularized target of the warrant and was not specifically mentioned in the affidavit supporting the warrant. Within the affidavit in support of the search warrant, there was no showing that she was committing or about to commit any crime, nor that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There was no showing of any prior criminal record on her part. There was no showing that the drugs found in her purse were previously purchased at the Mallula home. In fact, there was no showing that the police conducted a surveillance and observed any drug activity from the Mallu-la home except for one controlled sale they conducted. There was no showing that persons who frequent the Mallula home possess or purchase drugs. Consequently, the affidavit failed to establish individualized probable cause to believe that “all persons” who would arrive at the Mallula home would be connected with the criminal activity.2 Given these facts, probable cause to search Jackson was lacking:
All we have in this case is a residence where some drug sales have been made, presumably by the owner or lessee, and where some unquantified amount of drugs is probably stored in an unknown manner. It does not follow from this *423that any person present at the residence, even after midnight, is probably involved in illegal activity. It was certainly reasonable to search the premises, but it was not reasonable to search unnamed persons who might be found on the premises merely because drugs had been recently sold and stored there. It is not enough that persons present [or arriving] might be involved.
Gilliam, 560 A.2d at 143 (emphasis in original).
[¶ 33.] The affidavit only reflected that the informant purchased methamphetamine from Mallula six times in the prior four years and that there was a recent controlled purchase of one gram of methamphetamine from Mallula. It then set forth five generalized statements about mannerisms of people who use drugs:
(1) Individuals who possess controlled substances often sell them to support their habit and to make a profit.
(2) Individuals who possess or distribute marijuana and/or other controlled substances also often possess or distribute other controlled substances.
(3) Individuals who possess or distribute drugs often possess drug paraphernalia.
(4) Individuals who distribute controlled substances often keep records of the transactions; possess firearms to protect themselves and to deter law enforcement; and use vehicles to both transport and store the drugs, paraphernalia, and proceeds.
(5) Individuals who occupy homes where controlled substances are stored often have those substances on them.
Obviously, this affidavit contained nothing to establish that the individuals therein who possessed drugs tended to associate with other individuals who used or possessed drugs. It also failed to mention that people who frequented the home were known to possess or purchase illegal drugs. See Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 90-91, 100 S.Ct. at 342, 62 L.Ed.2d at 245 (holding that there was no probable cause to search the defendant because the warrant application failed to allege that the premises were frequented by patrons who purchased illegal drugs).
[¶ 34.] While the affidavit supports the conclusion that the occupants of the Mallu-la home are engaged in illegal activity, “it does not support the conclusion that only illegal conduct occurs on the site, and that therefore any person present [or arriving] is likely to be ‘involved in the criminal activity in such a way as to have evidence of the criminal activity on h[er] person.’ ” State v. Carter, 79 Wash.App. 154, 901 P.2d 335, 339 (1995) (quoting Stokes v. State, 604 So.2d 836, 838 (Fla.Ct.App.1992)). In other words, “the necessary nexus between all persons present, the place, and the criminal activity ... [was] absent,” id., and Jackson’s Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure was violated. See Nieves, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d at 34 (providing that the affidavit in support of the search warrant must include: (1) the character of the premises, including its location, size and public or private character; (2) the nature of the alleged illegal conduct; (3) the number and behavior of persons expected to be present when the warrant is to be executed; (4) whether any persons unconnected with the alleged illegal activity have been seen on the premises; and (5) the precise area and time in which the alleged activity is to take place). While it may have been easy to be more specific in the affidavit, the fact is that the information presented to the magistrate was insufficient to establish probable cause for an “all persons” search warrant.
[¶ 35.] The State argues that is was “reasonable to infer that persons arriving at this residence at the time the search was conducted would probably be involved in illegal drug activity themselves.” However, this general statement was clearly not included within the affidavit in support of the warrant. Therefore, it cannot be used to support this warrant. See Thom*424as, 540 N.W.2d at 665 (stating that such information is “entirely irrelevant to a reviewing court ... as [it is] bound by the information provided to the issuing magistrate and may consider nothing more.”). Furthermore, “a person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.” Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91, 100 S.Ct. at 342, 62 L.Ed.2d at 245 (citation omitted).
[¶ 36.] As noted in the majority opinion, the State failed to present the good faith exception to the trial court. Therefore, we should reverse and remand.
[¶ 37.] AMUNDSON, Justice, joins this dissent.
. This case may be different if Jackson were already present in the Mallula home when law enforcement arrived to execute the search warrant because then, the fact that "drugs can be easily hidden on a person's body" may be relevant. However, Jackson arrived at the Mallula home while the execution of the warrant was in progress. Therefore, this factor can not be used to support this warrant.
As for the time of day this warrant was executed, it was not shown that casual visitors were less likely to be present in the Mallula home at 8:30 p.m. In fact, 8:30 p.m. is not a late hour to have casual visitors. Regardless, the time of day of execution is not "sufficiently probable, or even more than possible, that those present at this time were affiliated with illicit drug activity.” Gilliam, 560 A.2d at 143. Furthermore, this warrant could have been executed at any time without notice. Therefore, the majority opinion’s analysis of this factor is irrelevant because we must review the information presented to the magistrate and determine whether probable cause existed at the time the magistrate issued the search warrant.
The majority opinion also states that "the subject of the search was illicit drugs which can be easily hidden on a person's body.” It claims that this is another factor to support a determination of probable cause. However, there is no mention of this within the affidavit, therefore, “we cannot ... consider this in making our determination whether probable cause existed to support the scope of the warrant to search all persons present [or arriving]” on the premises. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d at 662. See id. at 665 (stating that such testimony is "entirely irrelevant to a reviewing court ... as we are bound by the information provided to the issuing magistrate and may consider nothing more.”).