Lawfulness of search warrant — Duncan v R [2010] NZCA 318 — R v Fox (2002) 19 CRNZ 652 — Legros v R [2016] NZCA 586 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 6, 20. The defendant faced four charges arising from a police search of his bedroom. The police had executed a search warrant for the defendant's address to search for evidence relating to a burglary at a neighbouring property. The police suspected that a former resident of the neighbouring property had been involved in the burglary. One of the items stolen in the burglary was a car, which police found at the defendant's address, with the former neighbour's fingerprints on it. Some two months and ten days after learning that the fingerprints belonged to the former neighbour, the police applied for and executed a search warrant for the defendant's address. They found no evidence relating to the burglary, but did find items in the defendant's bedroom that suggested drug-related offending, leading to the charges against the defendant. The defendant argued that the evidence relating to the items found in his bedroom should be excluded, because there were insufficient grounds to issue the search warrant for the items stolen in the burglary. He argued that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the search would turn up any evidence relating to the burglary. Given the two-month gap between finding the evidence and the search, the evidence had become stale. The Crown argued that given the combination of factors tying the defendant's address to the burglary and to the former neighbour there were reasonable grounds to believe that the search would turn up evidence relating to the burglary. Further, the delay between the burglary and the application for the warrant did not mean no stolen items would be found, as the former neighbour had been incarcerated during that period. The court found that the evidence linked the defendant's address to the former neighbour and to the burglary. The former neighbour also had a lengthy history of dishonesty offences, suggesting he may be involved in a burglary. Taken together, these factors amounted to reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to the burglary would be found at the defendant's address. If the search warrant was in fact invalid, the evidence could still be admitted via s 30 of the Evidence Act. The police had committed no major impropriety in obtaining the warrant, and the evidence they gained from the search of the defendant's address was central to the case against him. The court found that the evidence was admissible. Judgment Date: 13 March 2018.