A Cairns judge has delivered a significant blow to a police drug case, ruling a search of a man's home unlawful because an officer relied on the smell of cannabis from an incident months prior.
The Search and Seizure in Manoora
The case centred on events in the Cairns suburb of Manoora on the afternoon of October 11, 2022. Police officers attended a Bungalow Street residence following reports of a disturbance.
Upon arrival, Senior Constable Christopher Rumpf claimed he could smell cannabis coming from inside the home. Based on this observation, he and another officer entered the property and conducted a search.
During the search, police allegedly found a quantity of the drug ice (methylamphetamine) and related paraphernalia. A 34-year-old man was subsequently charged with possessing a dangerous drug and possessing anything used in the commission of a crime.
Judge Morzone's Scrutiny of the Evidence
In the Cairns District Court, Judge Dean Morzone was tasked with determining the admissibility of the evidence found during the search. The defence argued the search was unlawful, a claim the judge thoroughly examined.
Critical to the case was the officer's own testimony. Senior Constable Rumpf admitted under cross-examination that he had attended the same address months earlier, in June 2022, for a similar incident. On that previous occasion, he had confirmed the presence of cannabis.
Judge Morzone found the officer's evidence about the October smell to be unreliable. He concluded that the officer could not distinguish between a fresh smell and an odour lingering from the previous confirmed incident months before.
The judge stated there was no evidence the smell was fresh or contemporaneous with the October visit. He ruled the officer did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the search under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.
Consequences and Legal Precedent
As a direct result of finding the search unlawful, Judge Morzone exercised his discretion to exclude all evidence obtained during it. This includes the alleged drugs and equipment seized by police.
This ruling effectively dismantles the prosecution's case against the accused man. The decision underscores the legal requirement for police to have a current and reasonable suspicion when exercising their powers, and that past information alone may not suffice.
The judgment highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinising police evidence and ensuring strict adherence to the laws governing searches and seizures. It serves as a reminder that the smell of cannabis, while often cited, must be credible and related to the immediate circumstances to justify an intrusion into a person's home.
This case adds to a body of legal precedent in Queensland defining the limits of police search powers, particularly when relying on sensory evidence like smell that can be contested and is not time-stamped.
