Pre-trial ruling — admissibility of evidence — supplying methamphetamine — possession of offensive weapons — possession of methamphetamine for supply — possession of cannabis for sale — appropriate caution and advice — warrantless search — drugs — Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 20 & 28 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The defendant faced eight charges: three of supplying methamphetamine, one of offering to supply methamphetamine , two of possession of offensive weapons, one additional charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one of possession of cannabis for sale. A police officer stopped the defendant in a car she was driving after receiving a traffic complaint. While completing routine licence checks it came to light that the vehicle was sought by police in relation to an earlier incident of being driven by a driver who was forbidden. It was decided the car would be taken to a police station and the defendant was invited to remove her personal property from the car. While assisting the defendant the officer saw what looked like a home-made weapon sitting on the front passenger seat. She was stopped and arrested for possession of an offensive weapon and given an appropriate caution and advice under the Bill of Rights Act. The defendant and her car were subsequently searched revealing drugs, money and other evidence which formed the basis of the charges against her. Counsel for the defendant submitted the evidence was inadmissible as it had been improperly obtained. Two separate bases for the warrantless search were advanced by the Crown under ss 20 and 28 of the Search and Surveillance Act ("the Act"). Under s 28 of the Act an officer is empowered to conduct a warrantless search if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person travelling in a vehicle has committed an offense of possession of an offensive weapon, and the vehicle contains a weapon. The officers had clear reason (sighting the weapon) to search the car. The Judge found this evidence was admissible at trial. However, the justification for a warrantless search under s 20 of the Act (grounds for believing there is a controlled drug and if a search is not carried out immediately it will be destroyed) was not made out. There was no urgency to conduct the search as the car was already subject to impoundment. It could have been left at the police station over night while a warrant was obtained. The Judge found that although the s 20 search was invalid, the impropriety was slight, the intrusion on protected rights was slight and, given the importance of the evidence obtained, the fruits of the search should not be excluded. All the evidence obtained by the police by the conducting of the warrantless search of the vehicle was admissible. Judgment Date: 28 February 2019.