CH 3 -Drugs Flashcards
For the purposes of S.20 & S.21 of the SSA2012, what is a controlled drug or precursor substance? (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” (explain basic story/finding)
- Officers approach vehicle driver wide eyed gaze
- displaying symtoms of consuming meth
- nervous, anxious, rubbing tongue over lips etc Decision: demeanour & appearance alone do not given RG for B for 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 (explain basic finding-RG two-step)
- RG for Belief 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 (explain basic story)
Taxi/Sgt
- Taxi stopped by Traffic Officer
- 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 beliefs.18(2)MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015 (explain basic story)
Petrol station / memory card
- Accepted RG for 18(2) search (cumulative factors / observations)
- warrantless search conducted
- meth, paraphenalia and precursor found / Memory card found
- info from card - Hoete’s house searched
- charged & convicted / appealed /challenged resonable grounds
- No RG to seize and examine memory card
- Card evidence was deemed admissible (value outweighed unlawfulness)
- Appeal dismissed
Case Law
R v Merrett (2006) RTB s.18(2) MODA1975 / S.20SSA2015 (explain basic story/finding)
Manufacture/delay ex warrant
18(2) search on M’s home
- Charged & Convicted manufacturing Meth/Possess Precusors challenged RG relating to ticklist name (no accepted) challenged RG that drugs were at address after 5-day delay (accepted)
- timing of delivery was critical
- exclusion of edivence would be disproportionate to breach of rights; appeal dismissed
Case Law
R v Roulston (1998) Internal Searchs.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
cell search/mouth/safety concern
- Appellant strip-searched removed small package in underpants 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
- appellant did on purpose to provoke breach of s.124 officers purpose was to expell package
- secondary purposes prevent ingesting drug & seizure of evidence
- did not contravene s.124 SSA2012
- was not unreasonable search due to saftey concerns
- was not cruel & degrading (NZBoRA)
Case Law
R v T (1996) Internal Searchs.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
internal search/looking inside
- Search warrant at premises appellant concealing something in mouth told to spit, tried to swollow
- laid face-first on bed told to spit
- spat out gladwrap with 17 morphine sulphate tabs Appealed: package obtained by unlawful means, unreasonable search
- 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
Case Law
Sneller v Police (2007) Obsrtuction, Internal Searchs.124 SSA2012/s.18A MODA1975
refuse/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 Finding
- internal search requires persons consent
- forcing to open mouth was an internal search
- passive resistance not obstruction
- appeal allowed
In relation to Hazardous Substances & New Organisms Act 1996,
What is the Interpretation of ‘Emergency?’
Clue: Ac Im Da/Da to En (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:?
(5 points)
Clue Is Emer & Not CD, F, Bio -Not decl
- 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 declareing an emergency?
(4 points) E, R, Sta, Pr
- 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?
(3 points)
ID - St Auth - Emrg/Area
- ID themselves
- State authority to excercise powers
- Announce nature of emergency and area affected
s.2 Basic interpretation of Hazardous Substance:
Clue: F-Ex-ETox-Tox-Ox-Cor
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
