same building is the same as searching two or more separate houses and, therefore, probable cause must be established for each residence. See United States v. Hinton, 219 F.2d 324, 325-26 (7th Cir. 1955). An exception to this requirement is recognized where the separate dwellings are under the dominion or control of the target of the investigation. Figert v. State, 686 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind. 1997). However, in the absence of allegations about the target of the investigation, when there are two dwellings described under a single address, in order for the supporting affidavit to the warrant application to be sufficient, it must allege facts sufficient to establish probable cause to search either or both dwellings. See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 939 A.2d 813 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, there was no evidence in
holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless  holding that it is insufficient for a warrant to describe the premises only by street number or any other form of identification common to all of the dwellings when only one of the dwellings is subject to search holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises