Drugs

Question 1

What 7 steps should you take upon encountering a clan lab?

Answer 1

Restricted info - refer to CPK resources for answer

Question 2

Section 20

Answer 2

Warrantless search of places and vehicles in relation to some MODA 1975 offences

Question 3

Section 20 - warrantless searches of places and vehicles in relation to some MODA offences

Answer 3

A constable may enter and search a place or vehicle if he or she has reasonable grounds to:

(a) BELIEVE that it is not practicable to obtain a warrant AND that the is a relevant controlled drug AND
(b) SUSPECT that an offence has been/is being committed
AND
(c) BELIEVE that if a search is not carried out evidence will be CADD’d

Question 4

Section 21

Answer 4

Warrantless searches of people found in or on places or vehicles

Question 5

Section 21 - Warrantless searches of people found in or on places or vehicles

Answer 5

A constable conducting a search under S20 may search any person found in or on the place or vehicle

Question 6

Section 22

Answer 6

Warrantless power to search for persons for controlled drugs if MODA offence is suspected

Question 7

Section 22 - warrantless power to search people for controlled drugs if MODA suspected

Answer 7

You may search a person if:
- You BELIEVE they are in possession of a relevant controlled drug, and;

• You SUSPECT an offence relating to MODA has been committed

Question 8

Section 124

Answer 8

Internal searches generally prohibited except for with the person’s consent searching the person’s mouth

Question 9

Hill v Attorney General

Answer 9

The taxi case law - Relates to the lawfulness of a search - the right to search without warrant is triggered only when there is an objective belief that one of the drugs expressly included in the 1st schedule or in part 1 of the other schedules is present

Question 10

Collins v Police 2007 search

Answer 10

Demeanor, appearance and RGTB

Demeanor and appearance, whilst warranting strong grounds for suspicion did not provide Police with RGTB - evidence of demeanor alone is unlikely to justify a search under SSA.

Question 11

R v T (1996) - internal search

Answer 11

Appellant appeared to be concealing something in her mouth - placed face down on a bed and restrained - spat out 17 morphine tablets - appeal under S21 BORA - the purpose of the section is to prevent invasion of the body contrary to accepted standards of dignity and privacy

Question 12

R v Roulston

Answer 12

Roulston strip-searched - small package found in his undies - quickly placed it in his mouth - forced to spit it out - appeal dismissed: there is no reasonable case for preventing Police using reasonable force to take possession of the drug

Question 13

What is the gist of Hill v Attorny General?

Answer 13

The right to search without warrant is triggered only when there is an objective belief that one of the drugs expressly included in the 1st schedule or in part 1 of the other schedules is present

Question 14

What is the gist of Collins v Police 2007?

Answer 14

Demeanor and appearance, whilst warranting strong grounds for suspicion did not provide Police with RGTB - evidence of demeanor alone is unlikely to justify a search under SSA.

Question 15

What is the gist of R v T?

Answer 15

The purpose of the section is to prevent invasion of the body contrary to accepted standards of dignity and privacy

Question 16

What is the gist of R v Roulston?

Answer 16

That there is no reasonable case for preventing Police using reasonable force to take possession of the drug

Question 17

Sneller v Police

Answer 17

Sneller charged with wilfully obstructing a constable acting in the execution of his powers under MODA 1975. Went to the High Court on appeal from Sneller.

The circumstances are that Sneller refused to spit something that he had in his mouth out. A struggle ensued where he ended up being sprayed. He ended up spitting out plastic wrap which when tested returned a result for nothing.

124 is limited regarding internal searches. Forcing the mouth open to permit internal searching requires consent - a duty to cooperate by opening the mouth and spitting out cannot be implied - passive resistance was involved here.

Sneller was entitled to decline to allow Police to undertake an internal search of his mouth and no specific power in MODA requiring him to spit out the contents of his mouth. He was not obstructing Police when he declined to spit out the item.

Question 18

What is the gist of Sneller v Police?

Answer 18

Forcing the mouth open of a person in custody to permit inspection constitutes an internal search and therefore requires consent.