How have the courts interpreted a search warrant in the context of an assault on Dahood?

Dahood challenges the officers' actions at various stages of the execution of the two search warrants. First, Dahood argues that the officers did not act reasonably in obtaining the search warrants, because the officers had already obtained sufficient evidence to prosecute Dahood. However, police officers may have probable cause to obtain a warrant to search for additional evidence when an original warrantless search by consent of the defendant has already yielded evidence of a crime. See United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268, 1282 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084 (1989). Furthermore, "we may not question the wisdom of using a warrant, as opposed to less intrusive methods available to the agency." United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75, 78 (9th Cir.1982). Under the rationale of these decisions, the officers were reasonable in their belief that they could legally obtain a warrant to search for additional evidence. Because the second search warrant was obtained upon evidence of crimes that occurred after the first search warrant was executed, the first search did not render the second unreasonable. See Whitworth, 856 F.2d at 1281-82.

Dahood also alleges that the officers were unreasonable in executing the warrant at the time of day and week that they did, because in doing so they made the search more intrusive than it would otherwise have been. Failure to use the least intrusive means available is not necessarily unreasonable, however, if officers have otherwise valid reasons for proceeding as they do. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1983). A reasonable officer could have believed that the search would yield the most evidence if it was done at a time when gambling activity was likely to be at its peak, and that a search at such a time was within the bounds of the law.

Nor did the use of twelve officers amount to excessive force. The record clearly indicates that the officers did not use threats or physical force. In light of the size of the bar and the possibility that the clientele might be unruly, the officers reasonably could have believed that a show of strength was necessary to insure an orderly search. We thus conclude that the officers were reasonable in their belief that the conduct of the search was within constitutional bounds. See Duran v. City of Douglas, Ariz., 904 F.2d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir.1990) (police may take any reasonably necessary steps in executing warrants, including interference with personal autonomy).