With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that a gun was found stuffed into the cushions of the chair in which Defendant was sitting when the police entered suggests as much: if officers had entered more gently, perhaps Defendant would have had a chance to draw his weapon and injure or kill an officer or be injured or killed himself. Further, the search did not exceed the scope of the warrant, which weighs in favor of a conclusion of reasonableness. See United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876, 882 n. 7 (9th Cir.1980) (en banc) (“A warranted search is unreasonable if it exceeds in scope or intensity the terms of the warrant.”). The warrant authorized officers to search the house for guns, ammunition, and associated documents and paraphernalia, and they did just that. See United States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 442, 446 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, the extent of the property

A: holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding that where warrant authorized search of the defendants premises it was reasonable for officers to use a jackhammer to break up a concrete slab in the backyard in order to search for evidence underneath
D: holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises
C.