Admissibility of evidence — lawfulness of police stop — lawfulness of search — R v Pickery CA92/02, 26 June 2002 — Jones v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 433 — R v Kha HC Auckland CRI-2006-004-2127, 13 June 2008 — Holdem v R [2014] NZCA 546 — Tuato v R [2011] NZCA 278 — R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012 — Land Transport Act 1998, ss 96 & 114 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 18, 21 & 22. The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence that was obtained during a police stop. The police had stopped the defendant's car without giving a specific reason; they discovered that he was forbidden from driving, leading to his arrest. They then searched his vehicle and discovered a machete, resulting in an additional charge of possession of an offensive weapon. Section 114 of the Land Transport Act ("the Act") gives officers the power to require drivers to stop and provide details, provided that the stop is conducted for a reason connected to the Land Transport Act. Although there was a lack of evidence on the point, the Court inferred that the officer had conducted the stop to check that the defendant was complying with the Act. Therefore the stop was permitted under the Act. The next issue was whether the search of the defendant's car was lawful. The Court found that the search was conducted to preserve the defendant's personal property, which is a lawful purpose under s 96 of the Act. The Court then examined the issue of exclusion of the evidence, in case it had reached the wrong conclusion on either of the first two issues. The Court held that if the stop was conducted for a purpose unconnected with the Act, any evidence obtained as a result would be unlawful. Similarly if the search of the car was conducted for the purposes of investigation, rather than to take an inventory of the defendant's property, it would constitute unreasonable search and seizure. The Court found the stop and search lawful and the evidence admissible; but if these conclusions were wrong, then the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act. Judgment Date: 12 July 2018.