Editing Search and seizure (section)

==New Zealand==
{{main|Unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand}}

There is little to no protection from unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand.

Section 21 of the [[New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990]] (NZBoRA 1990) incorporates the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure into [[Law of New Zealand|New Zealand law]], stating that: ''"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise."''<ref>{{Cite Legislation NZ|link_name=nzbora1990241|legislation_type=act|legislation_title=New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990|legislation_number=1990 No 109|clause=21}}</ref> However, Section 4 of the Act explicitly denies the Bill of Rights supremacy over other legislation.<ref>{{Cite Legislation NZ|link_name=nzbora1990241|legislation_type=act|legislation_title=New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990|legislation_number=1990 No 109|clause=4 and 6}}</ref> The result is that the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is routinely ignored by the State,<ref>{{cite book |title=Review of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Issues Paper |date=November 2016 |publisher=New Zealand Law Commission |location=Wellington |isbn=978-1-877569-77-7 |page=29-39 |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/assets/Publications/IssuesPapers/NZLC-IP40.pdf |access-date=4 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Supreme Court case raises questions of police powers, lawyer says |last=Cardwell |first=Hamish |date=2024-03-06 |url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/511028/supreme-court-case-raises-questions-of-police-powers-lawyer-says |work=Radio New Zealand}}</ref> which is able to exercise sweeping powers of search and seizure against private individuals.<ref>{{Cite report |title=Review of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 |date=2017-06-01 |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Reports/NZLC-R141.pdf |issue=NZLC R141 |access-date=2025-03-13 |trans-title=Ko Te Arotake I Te Search and Surveillance Act 2012 |publisher=New Zealand Law Commission |location=Wellington, NZ |isbn=978-1-877569-80-7}}</ref><ref>[https://lawnews.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/R-v-Pikia-2024-NZCA-408.pdf ''R v Pikia'' [2024<nowiki>]</nowiki> NZCA 408]</ref><ref>{{Cite NZLII|court=NZHC|year=2015|num=3268|link=https://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2015/3268.html|commonname=Hager v Attorney-General}}</ref><ref>''W and M'' [2024] NZHC 2063.</ref> This has been reinforced further by courts delineating unreasonableness versus unlawfulness, making it possible that, for example, a lawful search can be unreasonable.<ref>R v Williams [2007] 3 NZLR 207, (2007) 23 CRNZ 1 (CA).</ref><ref>[https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/hamed-v-r-sc Hamed v R [2011<nowiki>]</nowiki> NZSC 101, [2012<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 NZLR 305,(2011) 25 CRNZ 326, at [174<nowiki>]</nowiki>.]</ref>

The only remedy available to individuals who have experienced an unreasonable search and seizure is to seek to have evidence excluded from proceedings under the Evidence Act procedures.<ref>Evidence Act 2006, s30 (5).</ref> However, there is no statutory remedy or recourse for search and seizures which do not yield any evidence, and only rarely are civil damages awarded to individuals who can afford to file lawsuits for compensation.<ref>Forrest v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 125, [2012] NZAR 798. Van Essen v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 917.</ref>