Admissibility of evidence — search of vehicle — drugs — Class A drugs — methamphetamine — Hill v Attorney-General (1990) 6 CRNZ 219 — Hammond v R [2017] NZCA 167 — Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 20. The defendant was facing charges related to the use and possession of class A drugs. In this pretrial matter he challenged the admissibility of evidence against him that arose from the warrantless search of a vehicle. The charges arose when police travelled to an address to conduct bail checks, including one of an individual who was on bail for methamphetamine possession. When approaching the address the police stopped the defendant, who was driving a car in a dangerous manner. The police discovered through a check that the defendant had previous drug-related convictions, and that the car he was driving belonged to the person who was on bail for methamphetamine possession. The police also noticed in the car of set of scales of a type commonly used in drug-dealing. Given the circumstances the police decided to conduct a warrantless search of the car, and discovered the drugs and utensils that were the basis of the charges. The defendant argued that the police lacked proper grounds for carrying out a warrantless search. The Court found that the combination of factors that gave rise to the search (the erratic driving, the defendant's history of offending, the presence of the scales and the car's connection to the other known drug-offender) gave the police reasonable grounds to believe that a warrantless search was necessary. The Court held that the evidence was admissible. Judgment Date: 16 July 2019.