Admissibility of evidence — cultivating prohibited plant — possession of a Class C controlled drug — cannabis — warrantless search — production order on telecommunications company — text messages — Dick v R CA151/2011, 27 May 2011 — McLean v R [2015] NZCA 101 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012 — Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The defendant faced charges of cultivating a prohibited plant and possession of a Class C controlled drug (cannabis in both cases). The charges arose from a warrantless search of her property after police officers responding to a callout on an unrelated matter had seen signs of a cannabis operation. The police then served a production order on a telecommunications company to access the defendant's text messages, gaining more evidence against her as a result. The defendant objected to the admissibility of evidence arising from both the warrantless search and the production order. She argued that the police should have got a warrant before searching the property. They had only taken her phone for safekeeping and that they sought a production order on the phone indicated it had been illegally searched. The Court found that the police were justified in carrying out the warrantless search because of the risk that evidence would be destroyed while they applied for a warrant. As regards the production order, the Court found no causative link between the police taking possession of the phone and then obtaining a production order. If in fact there had been an unlawful search of the phone, the Court found that this was a minor impropriety and to exclude the evidence would be a disproportionate response. The Court concluded that the evidence arising from both the warrantless search and the production order was admissible. Judgment Date: 10 January 2019.