In a typical ITO - Information to Obtain a Warrant, the scope has to be laid out with justification:
A search warrant can be used not only for collecting evidence supporting a criminal charge but also as an investigative tool for alleged criminal activity.
The items sought need not necessarily afford evidence of the actual commission of the offence under investigation. Rather it "must be something either taken by itself or in relation to other things, that could be reasonably believed to be evidence of the commission of the crime."
Generally, an approving justice should be satified that:
that the items specified exist; that the items specified will be found in the place to be searched at the time of the search; that the offence alleged has been, or will be, (depending on the type of search warrant being sought) committed; that the items specified will afford evidence of the offence alleged; and that the place to be searched is the location where the items will be located.
There are five basic questions that all ITO's must address at a minimum:
What are the grounds for believing the things to be searched for exist? What are the grounds for saying that the things to be searched for are at the place to be searched? What are the grounds for saying the offence has been committed as described? How will the things to be searched for afford evidence of the commission of the offence alleged? What are the grounds for saying that the place to be searched is at the location identified?
The justice of the peace loses jurisdiction where the description is over-broad or too vague such that it essentially allows the officer to conduct a "carte blanche" search for any evidence within the premises.
It has been recommended the following principles be considered:
Peace officers should be given some latitude in describing things as they are still at the investigative stage; the description may be limited to classes of documents if it is sufficiently limited to the crime for which they are alleged to afford evidence; the Information sworn to obtain the Search Warrant must be read together with the Search Warrant; the nature of the offence(s) must be considered; in considering all of the factors, appropriate inferences may be made; *there need not always be a time limit set out with respect to the documents or items sought*; overly broad or vague descriptions can be severed leaving validly described things remaining; each case must be considered on its own facts.
http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cana..._Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Warrant_Searches
----
As far as damage, it is my understanding, that LE is responsible for any costs associated with damage in executing a Warrant. Of course they have exceptions where they hold the owner responsible, but I have also seen lengthy proceedings from trying to recover costs.
I would also imagine that they obtained a new warrant for this second search. Once they release a scene back to the owners, they cannot come back wothout another warrant. There is legal paperwork involved in releasing the scene that includes damages.
