The images could clearly be linked to the cubicle damage, he said.
Justice Cameron said he had reservations about a District Court ruling the search of Mr Aranguiz's cellphone was unreasonable because the accused had been arrested for damaging the toilet cubicle not the illegal recording. The evidence was highly relevant and not realistically open to challenge, he said.
The judge said the screw driver and cellphone were not recovered as a consequence of the breach but, even if they were, the exclusion of the items from evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety of the breach. is clearly engaged," Justice Mander said.Īlthough Aranguiz had been in the cubicle for 50 minutes before the constable appeared, the constable should have made preliminary inquiries before making a visual examination. When coupled with the bodily function associated with the use of the toilet cubicle, the preservation of a person's dignity. "The reasonable expectation of privacy deriving from a person's occupation of a toilet cubicle is obvious.that an occupant of a locked toilet cubicle may be partially unclothed is a foreseeable state of affairs. Justice Cameron Mander said the officer's search of the cubicle by looking over the top was not unlawful but it was unreasonable.Īranguiz had a legitimate expectation of privacy and criminal activity detected through the search could not validate the search. To refuse would be another offence, the officer said. The officer also recovered a screw driver used to make holes in the cubicle wall from Aranguiz's pockets.Īt the police station, an officer told Aranguiz to unlock his phone so he could inspect it. Emilio Araneda Aranguiz was found guilty at a Christchurch District Court trial in December of making intimate visual recordings.