CH 3 -Drugs Flashcards
For the purposes of S.20 & S.21 of the SSA2012, what is a controlled drug or precursor substance? SPPP(4)
- Shedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)
- Part 1 of Shedule 2 MDA
- Part 1 of Shedule 3 or
- Precursor substance specified or described in: Part 3 of Shedule 4 of MODA1975
Case Law
Collins v Police (2007)
Search: demeanour, appearance & “reasonable grounds for belief
Brief explanation and Decision
- Officers approach vehicle driver wide eyed gaze
- displaying symptoms of consuming meth
- nervous, anxious, rubbing tongue over lips etc
Decision:
demeanour & appearance alone do not given Reasonable Grounds for Believing consumption
- could come from lawful obtained drugs
Case Law
Hill v Attorney-General (1990) Reasonable grounds for beliefs.18(2)MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015
House search - two step 2
RG for Belief has a two-step process
controlled Drug in house/vehicle &
MODA offence being committed
controlled drug involved is one specified
Officer doesnt need to know what drug it is just RG for believing it is involved
Case Law
Hill v Attorney-General (1990)
Reasonable grounds for beliefs.18(2)MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015
Taxi/Sgt
- Taxi stopped by TO
Police called to MODA search taxi
Not every controlled drug covered in search power
Sgt stated did not know what drug searching for
RG came from info supplied and obs
unknown white powder seen being traded
Sgt in evidence did not cover his belief it was a controlled drug covered by 18(2)
Case Law
Hoete v R (2013) Reasonable grounds for belief
s.18(2)MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015 (explain basic story)
Petrol station / memory card
- Accepted RG for 18(2) search (cumulative factors / observations)
- warrantless search conducted of person
- meth, paraphenalia and precursor found / Memory card found
- SW based on information from card - Hoete’s house searched
- No RG to seize and examine memory card in shirt pocket days later
FINDING:
The Court therefore held that the seizure and examination of the memory card was unlawful and the evidence located on the memory card improperly obtained. However, after undertaking the s 30 balancing process, the Court concluded that Judge Wiltens was correct to rule that the evidence was admissible in this case.
Case Law
R v Merrett (2006)
RTB s.18(2) MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015
check case law
Manufacture/delay ex warrant
Decision:
s30 exclusion of evidence would be disproportionate to breach of rights; appeal dismissed
18(2) search on M’s home
Charged & Convicted manufacturing Meth/Possess Precusors
challenged RG relating to ticklist name (not accepted)
challenged RG that drugs were at address after 5-day delay (accepted)
timing of delivery was critical
Case Law
R v Roulston (1998) Internal Search
s.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
cell search/mouth/safety concern
was not unreasonable search due to saftey concerns, was not cruel & degrading (NZBoRA)
- Appellant strip-searched removed/placed package in mouth/tried to swallow
- Officers applied force to neck & head, nostrils & throat
- appellant opened mouth to shout, package fell out
- seized by officer
- did on purpose to provoke breach of s.124
- officers purpose was to expell package
- secondary purposes prevent ingesting drug
- did not contravene s.124 SSA2012
Case Law
R v T (1996) Internal Search
s.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
internal search/looking inside
Decision:
There had not been an internal search manual/visual exam (prohibited) does not include what can be seen by normal obs, eg mouth open for speech
although restrained was not an internal search
- Search warrant at premises appellant concealing something in mouth told to spit, tried to swallow
- laid face-first on bed told to spit
- spat out gladwrap with 17 morphine sulphate tabs
- Appealed: package obtained by unlawful means, unreasonable search
Case Law
Sneller v Police (2007)
Obstruction, Internal Search
s.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
refuse/not obstruction
Finding: appeal allowed
internal search requires persons consent
forcing to open mouth was an internal search
passive resistance not obstruction
- S refused to spit something out of mouth
- struggle failed to overcome his resistance
- pepper sprayed, expelled pieces of chewed plastic wrap
- negative result for drugs
In relation to Hazardous Substances & New Organisms Act 1996,
What is the Interpretation of ‘Emergency?’
AD (2)
- Actual/Immediate danger to human health or safety (or)
- A danger to environment/chattles…immediate action required to remove -arising from hazardous substance/new organism
s.136 When can an enforcement officer declare an
Emergency on Reasonable Grounds to believe:?
E but not: CFBO
There is an emergency and either:
- not Civil Defence Emergency Management Act emergency
- not Fire Service Act
- not Biosecurity Act
- no other enforcement officer has declared
s.136 What are s.136 Emergency Powers used for when declaring an emergency?
ERSP
- Enter premises/dwelling
- Remove cause
- Stabilise situation
- Protect health
When declaring an emergency under s.136 HS&NOA1996, what are the officer’s statutory obligations?
ISA
- ID themselves
- State authority to excercise powers
- Announce nature of emergency and area affected
s.2 Basic interpretation of Hazardous Substance:
FEETOCG
Any substance with one or more intrinsic properties:
- Flammable
- Explosiveness
- Eco-Toxicity - with or without bioaccumunulation
- Toxicity
- Oxidise (capable)
- Corrosiveness
- which on contact with air or water (Temp/Pressure) generates a substance with one or more above properties.
s.2A Meaning of term ‘New Organism’
- Species not present in NZ immediately before 29 July 1998:
- An organism, risk species, not present in NZ at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation:
- An organism for which a containment approval has been given under this Act:
- An organism for which a conditional release approval has been given
- A qualifying organism approved for release with controls:
- A genetically modified organism:
- Organism belonging to species, subspecies, infra-subspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand
