Dealing in class A, B and C controlled drugs — admissibility of evidence — search of car — search of cellphone — warrantless searches — whether grounds to believe evidence present — alert from Police Communications — McLean v R [2015] NZCA 101 — Puna v R [2016] NZCA 455 — R v Yeh [2007] NZCA 580 — R v Laugalis (1993) 10 CRNZ 350 — Dotcom v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 199 — Hoete v R [2013] NZCA 432 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 84, 88, 110 & 125. The defendant faced charges of dealing in class A, B and C controlled drugs. She had been arrested after her car aroused the suspicions of a police officer (the arresting officer), who then learned from Police Communications that the defendant was wanted for drug offending. A Police Communications alert also instructed the arresting officer to seize and secure the defendant's cellphone and to search her car for evidence. The arresting officer spoke to a senior officer who reinforced the instructions in the Police Communications alert, telling the arresting officer that the car and cellphone likely contained evidence. Subsequently the arresting officer searched the car and seized the cellphone. Both the car and the phone contained evidence that formed the basis of charges against the defendant. In this pretrial matter the defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence found in the searches of her car and phone. She argued that the arresting officer had no reason to believe that evidence relating the charges was in the car, and the arresting officer should have obtained a warrant before searching the phone. The Crown in response argued that the arresting officer did have reasonable grounds to believe that there was evidence in the car, and that therefore the search of the car was lawful under s 84 of the Search and Surveillance Act (the Act). In turn the search of the cellphone was lawful under ss 88 and 125 of the Act, as it was in the defendant's control and there were reasonable grounds to believe that it contained evidence of drug dealing. The Court considered that the warrantless search was the realistic option for the arresting officer in the circumstances. The Police Communications alert and the discussion with the senior officer had given the arresting officer reasonable grounds to believe that there was evidence in the car, so the warrantless search was authorised by s 84 of the Act. The alert and the conversation also established that the cellphone was probably connected to the offending as well, so the search and seizure of the cellphone was authorised by s 110(h) of the Act. The Court found that the evidence obtained as a result of the searches of the car and cellphone was admissible. Judgment Date: 13 August 2018.