Police response to IPCA report

NZ Police accepts the findings of an Independent Police Conduct Authority report into the search of a New Plymouth man’s home in October 2014.

The report found that while Police were justified in entering and searching the property to look for a violent offender, they did not comply with all aspects of the Search and Surveillance Act.

On the evening in question, Police officers were responding to a report of a domestic assault by a known violent offender, and were advised by witnesses that they had seen the offender inside a nearby property.

One officer – a dog handler – entered the back door of the property with his dog, without identifying himself to the occupant. The occupant and his dog were taken by surprise and a dog fight ensued. When the occupant’s dog continued attacking the Police dog, an officer used pepper spray to control it. The officer then conducted a search of the property along with two colleagues. The offender was not located in the property and there was no evidence that the occupant of the property, Mr Z, was involved in the matter.

The IPCA found that Police’s use of pepper spray was appropriate and justified. It also found that the entry and search of the property was justified, but that the search was unlawful for two reasons: because Police did not tell the occupant of the property that he could refuse to consent to the search; and because the dog handler did not identify himself by name to the occupant.

Taranaki Area Commander Inspector Keith Borrell says Police accept the Authority’s findings.

“The Search and Surveillance Act states that a Police officer may ask a person to consent to undergo a search of a place to investigate whether an offence has been committed. The Act also requires the Police officer conducting that search to advise the person from whom consent is sought that they may either consent or refuse to consent to the search,” says Mr Borrell.

“We acknowledge that the officers did not tell Mr Z that he could refuse to consent to the search, and apologise to him for this error.

We also acknowledge that the officer concerned did not comply with the legislative requirement to identify himself by name to the occupant of the property.

“Police officers are often called on to respond to fast-moving incidents in which rapid decision-making is required in order to protect people or property. However, we are very mindful that we need to comply at all times with the relevant legislation. Staff have been reminded of their obligations under section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and refresher training is being provided,” Mr Borrell says.

ENDS

© Scoop Media