R v Trandafilov

Case [2021] SADC 85

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v TRANDAFILOV

[2021] SADC 85

Ruling of her Honour Judge Fuller 

15 July 2021

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES

The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug -accused driving vehicle when observed by a police dog handler on uniformed patrol with police dog in rear of vehicle -police dog handler decided to conduct random breath test – lost sight of vehicle and found vehicle parked in unit complex car park with no sign of driver. Police dog handler suspected vehicle stolen and opened driver’s door which was unlocked and looked inside – mobile phone observed on seat – police dog handler deployed police dog to search for driver – accused found on private property shortly thereafter – other police patrols attended and physically removed accused from premises – accused not arrested – police dog handler returned to vehicle to search it – observed ice-pipe and informed other police officers – search of vehicle by other police officers and mobile phone, ice-pipe and resealable bags found and seized – accused searched by police and cash found – accused put in cage car and conveyed to his vehicle – police dog handler conducted ‘article search’ on private property and found methylamphetamine in bin. Accused then arrested.

Voir dire challenge to lawfulness of searches of vehicle and bin – argued that no reasonable suspicion existed. Challenge to lawfulness of entry onto private property – argued that this was a trespass. Conceded that certain searches conducted by police were lawful. Application to exclude evidence –exclusion of lawfully obtained evidence by reason of preceding unlawful conduct by police and cumulative effect of illegalities.

Held: Searches of vehicle by police dog handler unlawful. Search of bin unlawful. Other searches lawful but were causally linked to preceding unlawful conduct. Entry onto private property to search for and remove accused did not constitute a trespass. Accused unlawfully detained. Evidence of items located during all police searches excluded.

District Court Criminal Rules 2014 (SA) Rule 49(1)(h); Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(3); 52; 52(6); 52(9); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) ss 17(1)(a); 17A; 17A(1)(c); 68; 75; 79A, referred to.
R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391; Bunning v Cross [1970] HCA 21, (1970) 126 CLR 321; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; State of NSW v Le [2017] NSWCA 290; R v O'Neill [2020] HCA 45; Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1; R v Rondo (2001) 126 A Crim R 562; R v Trotter (unreported decision of Duggan J) delivered 28 February 1990; R v Amad (1962) VR 545; R v Rogers (Ruling of Simpson DCJ) 11 February 2003; R v Rogers [2011] 109 SASR 307; R v Frantzis (1996) 66 SASR 558; R v Willingham (No 2) [2012] SASCFC 104; Florida v Jardines (2013) 569 US 1

Continue reading R v Trandafilov

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Trandafilov [2021] SADC 85
Case
[2021] SADC 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was charged with drug-related offences after a series of searches were conducted by police officers. The searches led to the discovery of various items, including drugs, which were later used as evidence against the respondent. The respondent challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that it was obtained unlawfully. The court had to determine whether the searches were lawful and, if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded.

The primary legal issue was whether the searches conducted by the police were lawful and, if not, whether the evidence obtained from those searches should be excluded. The court had to consider the legality of the searches of the respondent's vehicle, the bin, and the private property. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the entry onto private property to search for and remove the respondent constituted a trespass and whether the respondent was unlawfully detained.

The court found that the searches of the vehicle by the police dog handler and the bin were unlawful. It was determined that the searches of the private property and the other vehicle were lawful but were causally linked to the preceding unlawful conduct. The court held that the entry onto private property to search for and remove the respondent did not constitute a trespass. However, the court found that the respondent was unlawfully detained. As a result, the evidence obtained from all the police searches was excluded.

The court ordered that the evidence of items located during all police searches be excluded from the trial. The court's decision was based on the principle that evidence obtained through unlawful means should not be admitted in court. This principle is intended to protect the rights of individuals and ensure that the justice system operates fairly. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting individual rights when conducting searches and making arrests.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: Searches of vehicle by police dog handler unlawful. Search of bin unlawful. Other searches lawful but were causally linked to preceding unlawful conduct. Entry onto private property to search for and remove accused did not constitute a trespass. Accused unlawfully detained. Evidence of items located during all police searches excluded.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.