Admissibility of evidence — warrantless search powers — proper invocation of search powers — Search and Surveillance Act 2012 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30. The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence against him. The evidence came from a warrantless search that he challenged as unlawful and unreasonable as well as a warranted search that he challenged as being a mere ruse to search for any evidence of other offending. The evidence was found at the defendant's address during a warranted search for evidence (clothes, cellphones and smartphones) connected to a separate and unrelated violent offence. The defendant was absent during the search but another occupant of the address was present. After discovering cannabis, the police undertook a warrantless search under the Search and Surveillance Act. The warrantless search revealed a taser in the garage, plus a safe in the bedroom that smelled of cannabis. The police seized the safe and later found ammunition and more cannabis inside. The occupant of the address, as a defence witness, argued that the police had not shown her a copy of the search warrant when they arrived, did not clearly explain the purpose of the warranted search, and did not properly advise her of the warrantless search. The Court preferred the evidence of the police, finding the occupant's evidence implausible and illogical. The Court found the police had shown the occupant the search warrant and had properly informed her of her rights and the reason for the warrantless search. There were genuine grounds for the warranted search, the police had executed the warrant properly, and had legitimate reason to seize the safe during the unwarranted search. The Court found that all of the evidence was admissible.