Question 1

Detectives Tough and Tricky heard from an informant in the drugs community that Joe was involved in trafficking drugs. Joe had several convictions for assault and disorderly behaviour. He had recently been released from prison after serving a one-year sentence for assault upon a police officer. The informant was well-known to the police and had several times had provided reliable information about drug trafficking.

The next morning, Tough and Tricky went to Joe's home. They waited outside. At mid-day, they saw Joe get into his car and drive out onto the road. They signalled for him to stop and get out. They conducted an external pat-down search of Joe but found nothing. They then searched his vehicle. They found a substantial number of methamphetamine tablets in a bag in the boot of the car.

Joe has been charged with possession of methamphetamine. Analyse the arguments for and against the admission at trial of the evidence of finding the drug.

Question 2

Simon Slick was a partner in a firm of lawyers, 'Straight and Narrow'. Several of his clients complained to the police about a scheme for investing in overseas property in which they had participated. The complainants alleged that Slick had used promises of high returns and minimal risks to persuade them to give him substantial sums of money for investment on their behalf. When they had repeatedly challenged him about the lack of returns, he had been evasive.

Officer Keen was in charge of the investigation. She asked Slick for an interview. Slick, however, refused the request, saying that the complaints were ridiculous and that he was much too busy to spend time on such 'nonsense'. Keen decided to look for evidence of what had happened to the money. She obtained a warrant to search the offices of his firm. The warrant stated:

"To the principal Police Officer in the State and to all the Police Officers in the State:

Whereas a complaint has this day been made on oath before the undersigned, one of the Justices for the State, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are in the premises of Straight and Narrow situated at 10 Seafront Parade, Capital City, documents or records of correspondence as to which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will afford evidence as to the commission of fraud.

You are hereby authorised to enter the said premises and there search for and seize the said documents or records so found. This warrant expires at 5pm on 30 June 2020."

Keen searched the offices and seized a computer on which she found some relevant documents and email chats. During the course of the search, Slick's secretary mentioned that he often worked in an office at his home. Keen decided that it might also be useful to search there. When she rang the bell, Slick's wife came to the door. Keen introduced herself, explained that she was investigating a case and wanted to look around Slick's office. Slick's wife replied: 'I suppose it's okay'.Keen then conducted the search and found some more relevant documents stored on a flash drive.

Slick is to be tried on ten counts of fraud. The total sum alleged to have been obtained was the equivalent of over US$500,000. The case against Slick is that he used the funds for gambling and to sustain a lavish lifestyle. Part of the evidence against him will be the information found on the computer and the flash drive seized by Keen.

Should the information found by Keen be admitted at the trial?