Admissibility of evidence — legality of search — grounds for belief that evidential material present — Alamoti v R [2016] NZCA 402 — Hammond v R [2017] NZCA 167 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 84, 101, 110(b) & 113 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30. The defendant faced charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of ecstasy. The charges arose when he was arrested for speeding and provided false details to the arresting officer. Subsequently other officers arrived at the scene and a Sergeant conducted a search of the defendant's vehicle. The Sergeant found the drugs in a bag in the car. In this pretrial matter the defendant argued that the search was unlawful and the evidence inadmissible; the Crown applied for an order that the evidence was admissible. The officer who made the arrest explained that the defendant had been "extremely cagey" when asked about the bag, arousing the officer's suspicions. The defendant denied being cagey and also claimed that he had relented and provided his true details before being arrested, meaning that there was no need for the officers to search for evidence of his identity. The Crown argued that the search of the vehicle was authorised by s 84 of the Search and Surveillance Act, as there were grounds to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the defendant's identity. Although the search was conducted by the Sergeant who arrived at the scene after the defendant's arrest, this was authorised by s 110 which allowed the arresting officer to request others to aid him in the search. The Court agreed with the defendant's argument that the arresting officer had to have reasonable grounds to believe that a search of the car would provide evidence of the defendant's identity, and the sergeant, who was not the arresting officer, could not invoke the s 84 power to conduct a warrantless search. Therefore the evidence was improperly obtained. However the Court found that the bag search was conducted at a time when the officers were still establishing the defendant's identity, and that evidence of his identity may have been found in the bag. The fact that the wrong officer conducted the warrantless search was an innocent mistake. In the circumstances of the case to exclude the evidence would have been a disproportionate response, so the Court ruled under s 30 of the Evidence Act that the evidence was admissible. Judgment Date: 29 October 2018.