Reserved decision — unlawful search and seizure — arbitrary detention — rights of young person — possession of cannabis for supply — possession of utensil — possession of firearm without lawful, proper and sufficient purpose — Land Transport Act 1998, ss 113, 114 & 115 — Transport Act 1962 (repealed), s 68B — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 131 — Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) & 13 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30(3) — Arms Act 1983, s 45 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 18 & 22 — Road User Charges Act 1977 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 215 & 282 — Attorney-General v Jones [2003] UKPC 4816 PRNZ 715 — Po v MOT (1987) 2 NZLR 756 — NZ Police v Duff HC Rotorua CRI-2007-069-1885, 4 September 2009 — Tapara v Police [1990] 3 NZLR 204; (1998) 3 CRNZ 616 — Baylis v R [2018] NZCA 271 — Wright v Bhosale [2016] NZCA 593 — Hill v Attorney-General (HC Wellington, CP26/86,30 June 1989) — Barton v Police [2013] NZHC 1481 — R v Maihi (2002) 19 CRNZ 453 (CA) — Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101. The young person had been charged with possession of cannabis, possession of a utensil for consuming cannabis, and possession of a firearm without some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose. The young person's co-defendant faced one charge of being in possession of ammunition without some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose. The prohibited items had been discovered by police during an inspection of the vehicle the two people had been driving in. The issues for determination were: whether the stop had complied with s 114 of the Land Transport Act ("LTA"); whether the warrantless search of the vehicle complied with the Search and Surveillance Act; whether the young person had been arbitrarily detained pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ("NZBORA"); and if so, whether the evidence ought to be deemed inadmissible pursuant to s 30(3) of the Evidence Act. LTA s 114 grants power to stop a vehicle for only the purposes of enforcement of the LTA; however, that power itself is not unrestricted. Counsel for the prosecution submitted the stop was for the purposes of checking whether the young person was conforming to the conditions of his drivers licence; however, the constables themselves had stated they were stopping vehicles that day for the purpose of seeing who was in the area in relation to vehicle crime and burglaries which had occurred, and their actions conformed with this. The Judge considered that the stop had not complied with the provision and the subsequent detention after the car had been stopped was unlawful. In considering whether the evidence should be deemed inadmissible pursuant to s 30(3), the Judge noted that a breach of NZBORA, s 22 will usually count in favour of exclusion; the young person had not been given his youth rights prior to questioning and he had been handcuffed rather than being issued summons which was a breach of s 214 of the Oranga Tamariki Act; while a search of the young person's car was less intrusive than a search of his home, a search of his person was an intrusive search. The Judge noted too that the constables had been reckless and careless in their approach to the situation, and that there had been no urgency to conduct a search. The Judge concluded that all of this favoured exclusion of the evidence, and deemed the evidence inadmissible. Judgment Date: 25 November 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *