Sept 2007

Most commentators have had their tuppenceworth on the Nai Yin Xue affair and I'll throw mine into the ring with regard to the police comments on the need for a search warrant to peruse the contents of a car parked on the road.

A few years ago I owned a rear townhouse using a shared driveway in one of the less solubrious parts of Christchurch. The front townhouse was rented out and one set of tenants was obviously running some sort of operation judging by the number of vehicles calling at odd hours of the night.

I arrived home from work one day to find the place swarming with armed offender police and detectives. I was stopped at the entrance to the drive and asked to identify myself, which I did as the owner of the rear property. I was then asked to park my vehicle (a utility truck) on the roadside which I did, locking it up and walked down the driveway to my house. I found that the police had been digging my garden looking for evidence and while I was talking to one in the garden, another asked to use the phone. Even I'm not stupid enough to know all cops have cellphones and it was just a ploy to give my place the once over. As I had nothing to hide I nodded to him and let have his head while the other continued to engage me in conversation. When it was all over and I went to move my vehicle from the road, I found all the doors unlocked (not the smartest way to hide a search).

I considered making a complaint, but as the police had got rid of a troublesome neighbour for me and were probably being thorough, I thought I'd let it be. Search warrants (or lack of them) in that case were no hinderance, so you've got to wonder why they couldn't flick open Nai Yin Xue's car and give it the 'once over'. I heard one police spokesman say they couldn't break the lock or the window for fear of the damage consequences. I'm sure basic car entering techniques must be part of the training and as a last resort they could have always called the AA, they'd have been into that car within 30 seconds.

TC