Unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand

Last updated

The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is well-recognised by the international human rights community. [1] Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA 1990) incorporates this right into New Zealand law , stating that: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise."

Contents

This right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is primarily concerned with protecting the privacy interests of individuals against intrusions by the State. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand [2] and Supreme Court of New Zealand [3] have both recognised that the protection of privacy is core purpose of s21 NZBoRA 1990. Chief Justice Elias described the right protected as "the right to be let alone" [4] however it currently does not provide a full right to privacy of the kind in Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. [5] Individuals subjected to a search or seizure that is unreasonable they may have a claim for a remedy, generally the exclusion of any evidence obtained by the search or seizure.

An analysis of whether an unreasonable search of seizure has occurred under section 21 is a two-step process of asking:

  1. Was there a search or seizure?
  2. Was the search or seizure unreasonable?

Unlike other rights protected under the NZBoRA 1990 there are no possible grounds for a reasonable limitation on section 21 under section 5 of the NZBoRA 1990 as if a search or seizure is unreasonable it is contradictory to say it could then be reasonably justified. [6]

Search and Surveillance Act 2012

While the NZBORA 1990 establishes the overall right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 provides the statutory framework for the practical application of the law in this area in New Zealand. Searches and seizures that do not comply with the requirements of the Act will be unlawful. The purpose section of the Act states that these requirements "recognise the importance of the rights and entitlements affirmed in other enactments including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990". [7] The provisions of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 accommodate the need to protect against unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, cases involving possible unreasonable searches or seizures will involve significant consideration of whether the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 has been complied with.[ citation needed ]

Unlawfulness vs unreasonableness

If a search or seizure is unlawful under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 then it is also likely to be considered an unreasonable search or seizure. However, the concepts of unlawfulness and unreasonableness are independent and it is therefore possible that, for example, a lawful search can be unreasonable. [8] Despite this, the courts have said that in terms of the most common remedy of exclusion of evidence an unlawful search should usually be considered an unreasonable search. Elias CJ went so far as to say that unlawful searches should automatically be unreasonable. [9] An exception is that where the search is only unlawful on minor or technical grounds it may still be reasonable. [10]

The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 does not provide a definition for the term "search". While the courts have not formed a single definition, Elias CJ has said that police investigation which invades private space where individuals have an expectation of privacy constitutes a search. [11] McGrath J recognised "search" has a broad meaning in terms of section 21 of "an examination or investigation for the purpose of obtaining evidence". [12] It is not settled whether a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist for there to be a search. In many cases there will be little difficulty in deciding that there has been a search as the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 specifically identifies and gives procedure for most common types of search. Common activities that are searches include: [13]

Visual observation

An area of difficulty is whether simply visually observing something amounts to a search. If a police officer simply sees something relating to an offence in the course of their normal duty without any conscious effort to find it then there will generally not be a search. However, cases have shown that even where there is some conscious action there may not be a search as requesting an individual hold their hands out to be observed [15] or hold a bicycle up so the serial number could be seen [16] were both not seen to be searches.

Covert surveillance

The use of surveillance equipment and whether covert recording amounts to a search has been a significant issue for New Zealand courts. In Tararo v R (2010) [17] the Supreme Court held that an undercover police officer video recording a drug transaction was not a search due to the low expectation of privacy. Covert surveillance of public areas will generally not be search due to the low expectation of privacy. [18] In contrast, surveillance of private property will likely be a search due to the high privacy interests. [19] The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 now provides clear statutory guidance for when covert police surveillance can lawfully occur. [20]

Seizure

There is no statutory definition of the term "seizure" in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. In the Supreme Court Blanchard J defined seizure as simply the removing of something from the possession of someone else. [21] Seizure can involve the taking into custody of personal property including vehicles and clothing. It can also relate to detaining individuals to search or obtain evidence from them. Any seizure must be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose to be reasonable, [22] this will generally mean the seizure must be authorised by an empowering statute. Most cases in New Zealand under s21 have focused on unreasonable searches rather than seizures.

Search warrants

Searches by police and other law enforcement agencies must, in most cases, be carried out under a warrant to be lawful. [23] In order for a search warrant to be issued there must be: [24]

What amounts to “reasonable grounds” is not defined in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, however a search warrant will be invalid only where the application for it was insufficient or it is so defective as to be likely to mislead the affected parties. [25] Part 4, subpart 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 sets out the requirements for lawfully carrying out a search once a warrant has been obtained. A search conducted without a search warrant or outside of the terms of a search warrant is highly likely to be unlawful and unreasonable.

Warrantless searches are lawful in certain circumstances under Part 2 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. For example, where they are incidental to an arrest [26] or drug offences. [27]

Implied license

Generally police officers must have statutory authorisation to enter on to private property. Police entry on to property outside of statutory powers may be lawful and reasonable where an implied license exists. An implied license permits an officer to “go to the door of private premises in order to make inquiry of an occupier for any reasonable purpose”. [28] This is significant as a police officer may find evidence of an offence while on the property under the implied license. Finding this evidence will not be an unlawful search as a result of trespass as the officer is lawfully on the property, this was the scenario in Tararo v R (2010) [29]

For this reason the scope of implied licenses is strictly limited in New Zealand. The Supreme Court has said an implied license is unlikely to exist if the purpose of the entry was not to make a reasonable inquiry or if it cannot be assumed that the occupier would have consented to the police entering had they known the particular purpose for the entry. [30] An implied license can extend to allow entry into a private premises in certain circumstances but this will be in the minority of cases and there will generally be no right of access even where, for example, the door to the premises is open. [31] An implied license can be revoked by the occupier through a clear unequivocal revocation, further, the existence of gates or signs may amount to a physical revocation. [32]

A search with no statutory authorisation may be lawful where consent to the search has been given. A search by consent will only be lawful if all of the following are satisfied: [33]

However, even if valid consent to a search has been given it does not automatically make the search reasonable. A lack of entitlement to conduct the search or the manner in which the search is conducted may still make the search unreasonable under s21. [35]

Remedies

Exclusion of evidence

The primary remedy for breaches of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is the exclusion of evidence obtained by the search or seizure. This remedy is provided by s30 of the Evidence Act 2006 where evidence has been "improperly obtained". Evidence is "improperly obtained" if it has been obtained in breach of s21 of the NZBoRA 1993 or the various regulations of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. [36] S30 requires the judge to conduct a balancing exercise to decide whether the exclusion of the evidence is a proportionate response to the impropriety or breach of s21 committed. If the judge decides exclusion is proportionate to the impropriety then the evidence must be excluded. This means that in some cases even where a search is unreasonable evidence. Retrieved may still be admitted if excluding it would not be proportionate to the breach.

The factors that the judge will have regard to in the balancing process are given in s30 (3) of the Evidence Act 2006, these include:

A useful example of this process in action is Hamed & Ors v R (2011) [37] where police unlawfully filmed activities on private land and parts of the evidence obtained were ruled admissible while other parts were inadmissible under the balancing process

Damages

In rare cases damages may also be available for breaches of s21 of the NZBoRA 1993 where the court wishes to highlight its disapproval of a breach of a fundamental right. [38]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.

<i>R v Collins</i> (1987) Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 1987 SCC 11 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<i>R v Wong</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.

Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons. For example, if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, the judge can rule that it not be shown in court. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that does not go with their case and could suggest or prove to the judge or jury that the defendant is not guilty or that (s)he is legally obligated to show the defense. In the latter case, this would be a violation of the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. Also Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." This can result in a mistrial in the latter case and/or the dismissal of the prosecutor.

Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 New Zealand police raids</span> Series of armed NZ police raids in October 2007

The 2007 New Zealand police raids were a series of armed police raids conducted on 15 and 16 October 2007, in response to alleged paramilitary training camps in the Urewera mountain range near the town of Ruatoki. About 300 police, including members of the Armed Offenders Squad and Special Tactics Group, were involved in the raids, which involved the execution of search warrants at various addresses throughout New Zealand, and the establishment of roadblocks at Ruatoki and Tāneatua. The police seized four guns and 230 rounds of ammunition and arrested eighteen people. According to police, the raids were a culmination of more than a year of surveillance that uncovered and monitored the training camps.

<i>Ngan v R</i>

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on 13 December 2007. The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

<i>R v Patrick</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Patrick, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579, 2009 SCC 17, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police have the right to take garbage bags placed for collection at edge of a property without warrant. In this case, the accused abandoned his privacy interest when he placed his garbage for collection at the rear of his property where it was accessible to any passing member of the public. His section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not violated when a police officer seized bags of garbage at the rear of his property and used the contents of seized bags as evidence of criminal activity.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion. For a useful summary see: court-recognises-intrusion-on-seclusion-privacy-tort-hugh-tomlinson-qc/

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Video Camera Surveillance Act 2011 is an Act of Parliament passed in New Zealand in 2011. The law is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamed & Ors v. R, and is intended to legalise surveillance ruled unlawful by the courts.

New Zealand's Search and Surveillance Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 5 April 2012, after being introduced in 2009. The three-year gap between the introduction of the Bill into Parliament and assent indicates the extent of the debates that occurred over the proposed extension of search and surveillance powers held by the State. A number of parties were concerned with the effect the Act would have on individual human rights, and the Green Party expressed the view that enforcement agencies were already abusing their powers. Others argued that the Act would make it easier to determine in each situation whether a lawful search had been carried out, as the law would be more clear and accessible if contained in just one instrument. Some parties believed that codification and clarification of the search and surveillance law would result in more compatibility with human rights.

<i>R v Spencer</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on informational privacy. The Court unanimously held that internet users were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information held by Internet service providers. And as such, police attempts to access such data could be subject to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Digital Search and Seizure refers to the ability of the United States Government to obtain and read an individual's private digital correspondence and material under The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

<i>R v Stairs</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.

References

  1. ↑ International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Art 17.
  2. ↑ Williams v Attorney-General [2007] NZCA 52.
  3. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326.
  4. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [10].
  5. ↑ Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2015] NZSC 28, at [118].
  6. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [162].
  7. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s5.
  8. ↑ R v Williams [2007] 3 NZLR 207, (2007) 23 CRNZ 1 (CA).
  9. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [50].
  10. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [174].
  11. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [10].
  12. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [164].
  13. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [165].
  14. ↑ R v Whimp [2007] NZCA 111.
  15. ↑ R v Yeung (HC Auckland CRI-2006-092-10945, 22 May 2009).
  16. ↑ Everitt v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 82.
  17. ↑ [2010] NZSC 157, [2012] 1 NZLR 145, (2010) 25 CRNZ 317.
  18. ↑ Lorigan v R [2012] NZCA 264, at [22].
  19. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326.
  20. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Part 3, Subpart 1.
  21. ↑ Ngan v R [2007] NZSC 105, [2008] 2 NZLR 48, at [106].
  22. ↑ Attorney-General v P F Sugrue Ltd [2004] 1 NZLR 207, (2003) 7 HRNZ 137.
  23. ↑ Dotcom v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 199, at [71].
  24. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s6.
  25. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s107.
  26. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s11 and Part 3, Subpart 4
  27. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Part 2, Subpart 9
  28. ↑ Tararo v R [2010] NZSC 157, [2012] 1 NZLR 145, (2010) 25 CRNZ 317, at [14]
  29. ↑ NZSC 157, [2012] 1 NZLR 145, (2010) 25 CRNZ 317.
  30. ↑ Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326.
  31. ↑ R v Pou [2002] 3 NZLR 637, (2002) 19 CRNZ 563.
  32. ↑ R v Ratima (1999) 17 CRNZ 227, (1999) 5 HRNZ 495.
  33. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s94.
  34. ↑ Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s93.
  35. ↑ Cropp v Judicial Committee [2008] NZSC 46, [2008] 3 NZLR 774, at [18].
  36. ↑ Evidence Act 2006, s30 (5).
  37. ↑ [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 25 CRNZ 326.
  38. ↑ Forrest v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 125, [2012] NZAR 798. Van Essen v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 917.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.