How have the courts dealt with the issue of a search warrant for a second search?

Defendant first contends that this second search was "tainted" by the illegality of the initial search, but this contention fails by reason of our [41 Cal.3d 688] determination that the initial consensual search was proper. Defendant next asserts that the warrant was rendered invalid because the officers failed to advise the magistrate that they had threatened to "bust open" defendant's trunk if he refused consent to a search. (See People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3d 67, 99, 148 Cal.Rptr. 605, 583 P.2d 130.) As previously indicated, however, the trial court could reasonably conclude that no such "threat" was made, or that it merely consisted of a correct statement of the officers' legal remedies if consent were refused. Failure to disclose such immaterial matters to the magistrate would not taint issuance of the warrant.