Cocaine Supply and Proceeds of Crime: Not Guilty After Unlawful Search

Result at a Glance

• Charges: Supply of a prohibited drug (cocaine), s25 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Dealing with suspected proceeds of crime (cash), s193B Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime (Audemars Piguet watch valued over $60,000).
• Court: Downing Centre Local Court.
• Hearing: Defended hearing (summary trial before a Magistrate).
• Outcome: Not guilty on all charges. Watch returned to our client.

Admitted to Selling Drugs. Found Not Guilty.

Our client was pulled over by police. Officers searched the vehicle. They found cocaine, a quantity of cash, and an Audemars Piguet watch valued at over $60,000. Our client admitted to selling drugs that night and confirmed the seized cash came from those sales.

On paper, this case was over before it started. The prosecution had the drugs. They had the money. They had the watch. And they had an admission from the accused tying it all together. Three charges followed: cocaine supply under s25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, dealing with suspected proceeds of crime under s193B of the Crimes Act 1900, and possession of property without reasonable explanation of ownership.

Drug supply carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment for non-commercial quantities. A conviction at this level means a criminal record that follows you permanently, potential full-time custody, and the kind of sentence that changes the direction of a life.

Most people looking at these facts would assume there was nothing left to argue. We saw something different.

The Prosecution Had Everything. Almost.

The evidence against our client was substantial. Physical drugs recovered from the car. Cash consistent with drug sales. A luxury watch the prosecution alleged was purchased with criminal proceeds. And a direct admission, made to police at the scene, that our client had been selling cocaine that evening.

The prosecution's case relied on all of this evidence being placed before the Magistrate. Each charge depended on the physical items seized from the vehicle and the statements made during the arrest. Remove the evidence, and the charges have no foundation. The prosecution assumed the evidence was secure.

But evidence doesn't just need to exist. It needs to have been obtained lawfully.

How We Changed the Outcome

The Arrest and Search Were Unlawful

We obtained the full Police Brief of Evidence and analysed every step of the stop, the arrest, and the vehicle search. What we found was a procedural failure at the foundation of the case.

In NSW, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) governs how police can search a vehicle and arrest a person. For a vehicle search without consent or a warrant, officers must have a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains something connected to an offence. An arrest must comply with the requirements set out in Part 8 of LEPRA. These aren't technicalities. They're the legal boundaries on police power, and they exist for a reason.

Our analysis of the brief demonstrated that the arresting officers had exceeded their authority. The arrest and the vehicle search did not comply with LEPRA requirements. That made both the arrest and the search unlawful.

When a search is unlawful, everything that flows from it is contaminated. The cocaine found in the car, the cash, the watch, and the admission our client made after being arrested: all of it became improperly obtained evidence. Under s138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), a court has the discretion to exclude evidence that was obtained illegally or improperly. The court weighs the desirability of admitting the evidence against the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in breach of the law.

We didn't argue that our client was innocent. We argued that the evidence proving the charges should never have been before the court in the first place.

The Defended Hearing

The matter proceeded to a defended hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court. A defended hearing is a summary trial before a Magistrate, where the accused contests the charges rather than entering a guilty plea.

At the hearing, we presented our arguments on the unlawfulness of the arrest and search. The prosecution's entire case depended on evidence that had been gathered in breach of LEPRA. Without the physical evidence from the car and without the admission, there was nothing left to support the charges.

The Magistrate agreed. The evidence was excluded. The prosecution could not prove its case.

The Result

Our client was found not guilty on all charges. The cocaine supply charge, the proceeds of crime charge, and the possession charge were all dismissed. The Audemars Piguet watch, seized by police on the night of the arrest, was returned to our client.

From a position where the prosecution held drugs, cash, a luxury watch, and a full admission of guilt, to a complete acquittal. That outcome turned on a single question: did the police follow the law when they searched the car and arrested our client? They didn't. And that changed everything.

Charged After a Police Search?

How evidence is obtained matters as much as what the evidence shows. Police have broad powers in NSW, but those powers have limits. When officers exceed their authority, the evidence they gather can be challenged and excluded, regardless of what it reveals. Even a confession can be set aside if the arrest that produced it was unlawful.

If you've been charged with drug supply, drug possession, proceeds of crime, or any offence following a police stop or vehicle search, the first question worth asking is whether the search was lawful. Call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW.

This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.