The Authority oversaw a Police investigation following two complaints about Police searches that were conducted at a Waikato address belonging to Complainant B on 13 and 14 June 2022.
Police conducted a warrantless search of the address on 13 June following reports that Complainant A had threatened somebody with a gun. Complainant A was arrested for obstructing Police and subsequently charged with this offence.
On 14 June Complainant A allegedly discharged a shotgun at the person who they had threatened the previous day. As part of their response to the incident, Police made an oral application to complete another search of Complainant B’s address.
Complainant A alleged that damage was caused to the property during both searches, that the occupants of the address were left outside in the cold on both days, and that items of property (knives and batons) not sought by Police were seized during the searches. Complainant B complained about their treatment during visits to Huntly Police Station on 16 and 17 June 2022, and questioned the validity of a search warrant, a copy of which was provided to them by Police three days after the search had been completed.
Following receipt of the complaints and a review of material provided by Police, the Authority identified an issue with the oral search warrant application: a copy of the warrant was not created by Police after the application had been approved by a judicial officer. Consequently, Police did not have a warrant, or a copy, in their possession at the time of the second search on 14 June 2022, and no copy was available to be left with the occupants of the address. Police were therefore not compliant with their duties under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Realising this to be the case, Police retrospectively obtained a signed copy of the warrant that had been orally approved on 14 June 2022. This copy was dated 17 June 2022 and endorsed with: “Executed 14/6/22”, which caused Complainant B to question its validity.
In light of the complaints, Police conceded that there were no grounds to seize some of the items of property that were removed during the course of the searches on 13 and 14 June 2022. These items were returned to Complainant B. Police also recognised that the process surrounding oral search warrant applications was not generally well understood, with some frontline staff being unclear of the process to be followed or receiving conflicting advice. Guidance regarding this process was subsequently disseminated within Police to guard against a similar situation arising in the future. Police verbally apologised to Complainant B, and provided assurances that lessons had been learnt.
Complainant A was convicted and discharged following a court hearing that examined the circumstances leading up to their arrest on 13 June 2022. The Judge did not make any adverse comment regarding the actions of Police and the Authority agrees that Police were justified in conducting a warrantless search of Complainant B’s address on this occasion.
It has not been possible to substantiate the extent of any damage caused to Complainant B’s address, or when it may have been caused, due to conflicting accounts. We accept that Police had lawful authority to execute a search power on 13 and 14 June 2022, and therefore the legal right to use reasonable force to do so. Police are not therefore liable for any damage to the address. Similarly, it has not been possible to substantiate Complainant B’s comments regarding her treatment by officers when visiting Huntly Police Station.
Police have determined that Complainant A’s and Complainant B’s complaints are not upheld. We are of the view that their complaints should be partially upheld: Police acknowledge that items outside the scope of their searches were seized; and, although unintentional, the oral application for a search warrant did not follow the proper process, leaving Police unable to comply with elements of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
IPCA: 22-14008 and 22-14161