Search of satchel — improper reason for search — whether informed consent for search — R v Alsford [2017] 1 NZLR 710 — R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52 — Tapara v Police (1988) 3 CRNZ 616 — Omar Hamed and others v The Queen [2011] NZSC 101 — Moore v R [2017] NZCA 577 — Land Transport Act 1998, s 114 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 20, 21, 22, 92, 93(a), 93(b), 94(a), 94(b) — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 21, 22 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30. The defendant was charged with possession of a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine) plus possession of a utensil. The charges arose when the a police constable stopped a car that the defendant was travelling in, and asked to look inside the defendant's satchel. Inside the satchel the constable found a glass pipe as well as a bag of methamphetamine. The defendant argued that the search was unlawful and unreasonable as the constable lacked reasonable grounds and purpose to search the satchel, and had also failed to advise the defendant of the reason for the search. Also the defendant argued that there was no informed consent as he did not know that he had the right to refuse the search. The Court agreed that the search was unlawful. The constable had failed to determine that the search was for one of the purposes set out in s 92 of the Search and Surveillance Act. Also he had failed to inform the defendant of the reason for the search, so there was no informed consent. The search breached the defendant's right to be free of unlawful search, pursuant to s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. The only adequate remedy for the breach was to exclude the evidence. Therefore the Court refused to admit the evidence via s 30 of the Evidence Act. Without the evidence there was no case; therefore the Court found the defendant was acquitted. Judgment Date: 19 April 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *