¶1The result reached by the majority is in direct contravention of Commonwealth v. Platou, 455 Pa. 258, 312 A.2d 29 (1973), where this Court held that a valid search warrant of the premises does not extend to the personal property of a visitor to the premises. I dissent because I am not convinced that there is any legitimate reason for overruling the holding in that case.
¶2The United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Pennsylvania Constitution similarly provides that “no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause____” Pa. Const, art. 1, § 8. In Platou, supra,we explained that
“[t]he requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”
*36455 Pa. at 263-64, 312 A.2d at 33(quoting Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 [48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231] (1927)).
¶3Today, the majority overrules Platou, declaring that the scope of a search warrant properly includes the personal property of a visitor to the premises being searched. I cannot join that decision because I am not persuaded that United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), is an indication that the United States Supreme Court would permit a search warrant of premises to extend to a visitor’s personal property. Reliance on Rossis clearly misplaced because the critical issue in that case concerned probable cause and not the particularity of the search as described in a warrant.
¶4Moreover, it is significant to note that even though both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution require particularity and probable cause, the order in which those two requirements are addressed differs. While the United States Constitution addresses probable cause first, the Pennsylvania Constitution addresses particularity first. This strongly suggests that in our Commonwealth particularity and probable cause are given at least equal importance. It would be inconsistent with the Pennsylvania constitutional formulation to suggest that, because of the degree of probable cause present in a given factual setting, the standard of particularity required can be lessened. Probable cause and the degree of particularity are two separate and distinct factors that must be considered in a judgment as to whether or not the constitutional mandate has been complied with. The strength of one requirement does not erode the mandate of the other. Hence, the fact that the standard of probable cause may be eminently clear in a given case cannot justify a relaxation of the degree of particularity that is required. The particularity requirement is not merely an appendage. A reading of the analysis of the majority suggests that they fail to appreciate this critical point.
¶5*37In light of the foregoing, I believe that Commonwealth v. Platou, supra,should be reaffirmed. To permit a police officer to extend the scope of a warrant to include property and persons not described in the warrant effectually takes away rights guaranteed to the citizens of this Commonwealth. Even if the personal property of a visitor located on premises being searched can properly be searched by a police officer under the United States Constitution, that type of conduct is clearly impermissible under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
¶6I, therefore, dissent.