Pubdate: Fri, 23 Oct 2009
Source: Dominion Post, The (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2009 The Dominion Post
Contact:  http://www.dompost.co.nz
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2550
Author: Claire McEntee
Contact: PROPOSED SEARCH POWERS 'OPEN TO ABUSE'

Human Rights commissioner Rosslyn Noonan says a new law giving
non-police agencies greater powers to snoop is "chilling" and
"disproportionately invasive".

The Search and Surveillance Bill, now before the justice and electoral
select committee, sets out the powers police have to search and
monitor people, but also extends powers to other agencies, such as the
Commerce Commission and local authorities.

They will be able to secure warrants to use surveillance devices, such
as cameras, search computers remotely and search vehicles without a
warrant.

Ms Noonan said those agencies needed to justify having extra
powers.

"It's quite chilling, really. In New Zealand we have the police force,
which most New Zealanders have considerable trust and respect for ...
with most of these other agencies the community as a whole wouldn't
even know who they are and suddenly they have got all these powers."

She conceded the legislation needed to be updated but said many of the
powers were disproportionately invasive given the agencies'
responsibilities.

Other legal experts say the new powers, based on a 2007 Law Commission
report, could be vulnerable to abuse.

Ralph Simpson, partner in commercial law firm Bell Gully, said police
were trained and reasonably responsible in the use of surveillance
powers, but other agencies were not qualified.

Agencies in Britain had received similar powers and had abused them,
with some councils using surveillance devices "to detect dogs crapping
on other people's lawns", he said.

Non-police agencies did not need surveillance powers and the police
could do it for them if needed, he said.

"Why does the Overseas Investment Office need the ability to search my
car?

"If you look at local government or the Commerce Commission, why do
they need access to put video cameras or listening devices on private
property? It's a pretty significant invasion of property."

Surveillance devices should be used on private property only to gather
evidence on serious offending, he said.

Council for Civil Liberties spokesman Michael Bott said the extension
of extra powers to these agencies raised serious concerns.

"Have these state agencies got Bill of Rights training and are they
rights-sensitive? Have they got police training and institutional knowledge?"

A provision allowing police to require people to answer questions was
"repugnant", he said.

Police Association vice-president Chris Cahill said it was important
that agencies had powers to investigate in areas police could not, but
they would need to be trained and use those powers
appropriately.

The bill would also allow police to search without warrants if they
thought there was evidence of a serious crime punishable by 14 years'
jail or more, and that any delay could mean evidence was destroyed;
and to detain a person at the scene of a search.

[sidebar]

SNOOP AND SEIZE

Agencies such as the Commerce Commission and the Agriculture and
Forestry Ministry will be able to:

Obtain warrants to use surveillance and tracking devices

Ask a person
to consent to a search of themselves, a place or vehicle.

Detain a person during a search of a place or vehicle

Seize items in
"plain view" without a warrant

Stop and search vehicles without a warrant.

Source: The Law Society
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake