Obstructing a Police Officer Executing a Search Warrant on a Drug Premises

Obstructing a police officer in the execution of a drug premises search warrant is an offence under section 143(1) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. A police officer was authorised under Part 11, Division 1 of the Act to enter a premises, and
2. You wilfully prevented, obstructed or delayed the officer from entering any part of the premises, or

You gave or caused alarm to notify another person of the officer’s presence or to obstruct or delay the officer from entering any part of the premises.

Part 11, Division 1 of the Act provides that a police officer in charge of an investigation into a suspected drug premises may apply to an authorised officer, such as a Local Court registrar or magistrate, for a search warrant if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds the premises is a drug premises.

The Division further provides that an authorised officer may issue the warrant if satisfied there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

The Division additionally provides that in addition to entry, search, seizure and arrest powers, a drug premises search warrant empowers police to:

1. Pass through, from, over or along any other land or building for the purpose of entering the subject premises,
2. Break open doors, windows or partitions, and
3. Do any other acts that may be necessary for the purpose of executing the warrant.

The Act defines a ‘drug premises’ as one which is used for:

1. The unlawful supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs, and/or
2. The unlawful cultivation of prohibited plants.

Prohibited drugs include amphetamines, cocaine, heroin and LSD.

Prohibited plants include cannabis and psilocybin, or ‘magic mushrooms’.

General legal defences to the offence of obstructing a police officer who is executing a drug premises search warrant include duress, necessity and self-defence.

If you are able to raise evidence of a general legal defence, the onus then shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence does not apply to the circumstances of the case.

You are entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution is unable to do this.