Criminology

In executing a warrant for a search of premises and of named
persons on the premises, police officers may not automatically
search someone else found on the premises. 162 If they can articulate
some reasonable basis for fearing for their safety they may
conduct a patdown of the person, but in order to search they
must have probable cause particularized with respect to that person.

However, in Michigan v. Summers, 163 the Court held that officers
arriving to execute a warrant for the search of a house could
detain, without being required to articulate any reasonable basis
and necessarily therefore without probable cause, the owner or occupant
of the house, whom they encountered on the front porch
leaving the premises. Applying its intrusiveness test, 164 the Court
determined that such a detention, which was substantially less intrusive
than an arrest, was justified because of the law enforcement
interests in minimizing the risk of harm to officers, facilitating
entry and conduct of the search, and preventing flight in the
event incriminating evidence is found. 165 Also, under some circumstances
officers may search premises on the mistaken but reasonable
belief that the premises are described in an otherwise valid
warrant. 166

Although for purposes of execution, as for many other matters,
there is little diffence between search warrants and arrest warrants,
one notable difference is that the possession of a valid arrest
warrant cannot authorize authorities to enter the home of a third
party looking for the person named in the warrant in order to do
that, they need a search warrant signifying that a magistrate has
determined that there is probable cause to believe the person
named is on the premises.

Search warrants are covered under the Search and Seizures of the 4th Amendment, so it is the same in every state. An error in good faith does not invalidate a warrant. As long as they believed they were at the right house, the evidence can be used against the person.