The police watchdog has found no evidence to support an allegation of a police officer planting evidence so he could search vehicles.

But some officers at Auckland's Ōtāhuhu Police Station made comments that indicated they were prepared to use "improper and potentially discriminatory policing practices", the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) said.

It launched an investigation after an officer raised concerns about comments his colleague, known as Officer A, had made about planting "point bags" (small, zip-lock bags, often used to contain drugs) in vehicles in order to use their legal powers to search under the Search and Surveillance Act.

Officer A was later found with three point bags in his police vest, one of which contained the residue of a white powder.

READ MORE:

*IPCA finds Auckland police made 'multiple failings' after losing track of man's firearms

*Police 'neglect of duty' led to unlawful search of Nicky Hager's home — IPCA

*Police officer investigating poaching case cleared by IPCA

*Taser use on Northland tractor joyrider 'unreasonable and excessive', IPCA rules

The incident occurred between June and August 2018, police said, and other officers who witnessed it reported it to their supervisors.

Officer A and another officer were immediately stood down and police began investigating.

The probe, which included interviewing several officers, searching Officer A's home, workplace, mobile phone and text data, concluded the officer did not plant evidence.

Police also analysed Officer A's notebook entries, arrests and search and surveillance notifications and identified issues in how the officer handled seized property.

They chose not to file charges, a decision which the Crown Solicitors Office reviewed.

The officer quit before the force could complete an employment investigation.

IPCA chair Judge Colin Doherty said it agreed with the finding there was no evidence Officer A "unlawfully and corruptly" planted evidence.

However, he described the officer's practices as suspicious.

During interviews, other officers told the IPCA they partly measured their success based on the number of arrests they made as a result of random or suspicious vehicle stops.

The IPCA was concerned by that behaviour for two reasons.

It indicated officers may stop vehicles in the hope uncovering evidence of offending and making an arrest without reasonable grounds or for the purpose of enforcing the Land Transport Act.

Stopping "suspicious" drivers without evidence that they were breaking the law would likely lead to discrimination as some groups would be stopped more than others, as international research clearly showed.

The IPCA recommended police clarify its 'Exhibit and property management' policy, specifically in relation to how low-value items officers had seized that were not used as evidence – such as point bags – were processed and destroyed.

Counties Manukau district commander Superintendent Jill Rogers said Officer A's comments were completely unacceptable and "totally out of line" from the professionalism and values she expected from her staff.



"The fact that other officers reported this to their supervisors is very reassuring and I think the immediate response by police which saw the two officers stood down while the matter was investigated proves that we do not tolerate this type of behaviour," Rogers said.

She said police used an "evidence-based approach" to preventing crime, which included analysing data and intelligence to patrol areas where crime and road trauma occurred.

Rogers acknowledged police looked out for suspicious vehicles, people and activity, adding that was "exactly" what the community expected officers to do.



"Officers are trained as to what lawful powers they have to conduct vehicle stops. There are countless examples where lawful vehicle stops have removed dangerous drivers from our roads as well as discovering illegal drugs including methamphetamine, firearms, stolen property or wanted persons and prevented further offending and victimisations."

Officer B was cleared of any wrongdoing and returned to work. That officer is still in the force and has been told of the IPCA's findings.