00  Law Commission Report CHAPTER 13:Post-execution procedures if neither can be ascertained, the court �gmay make such order with respect to possession of the property as [it] thinks fit.�h⁸ Finally, property that has come into the possession of a police officer and is unclaimed after three months may, by direction of the c 9 13.15 There are a number of provisions in other search warrant regimes relating to the disposal of seized property. Some simply apply or incorporate the provisions of section 199 of the Summary Proceedings act 1957;¹⁰ other regimes have separate provisions, elements of which appear to have been drawn from the Summary Proceedings a  ct model. 11 The Summary Proceedings a  ct regime has also been applied to warrantless seizure powers.¹² Problems with the current law 13.16 The present legislation relating to the disposal of seized items is couched in largely permissive and discretionary terms. This has provided a generally workable framework for day-to-day operational law enforcement and for the courts. however, its vagueness and permissiveness does not provide clear guidance to enforcement agencies on their obligations with respect to seized property and there are also several problem areas with the pres 13.17 First, pursuant to section 21 of the Bill of Rights a ct, enforcement agencies are obliged to make reasonable inquiries to ascertain whether retaining a seized item is justified, and to return such items forthwith when it is clear that it is not.¹³ however, neither section 199 nor the other enactments is drafted in those terms: in the absence of a court order, it appears to be left to the discretion of the enforcement officer whether to return an item, and it places the onus on a person claiming to be entitled to the property to apply to the court for its return. 13.18 Secondly, existing provisions are silent as to the grounds upon which an application for return may be made, or the basis upon which the court may make the order. in particular, there is no distinction drawn between an application made before charges are laid and an application made after charges are laid; nor is there a distinction between disposal prior to conviction and disposal at the end of proceedings resulting in a conviction or acquittal. 13.19 Thirdly, there is no consistency between the provisions relating to post-seizure procedures following the execution of a warrant, and the procedures following the exercise of a statutory power of search and seizure without warrant. For the most part, legislation authorising the exercise of warrantless powers does not provide for post-seizure procedures. 8 Police a  ct 1958, s 58(1). 9 Police act 1958, s 59(1). unclaimed perishable goods may be disposed of at any time. a separate regime exists for the disposal of firearms; see 10 See, for example, animal Products act 1999, s 97; human assisted Reproductive Technology act 2004, s 72; Wine a  ct 2003, s 68. 11 See, for example, Films, videos, and Publications classificationact 1993, s 118; Financial Transactions Reporting act 1996, s 51; Gambling act 2003, s 345; Motor vehicle Sales act 2003, s 139; Resource Management a ct 1991, ss 336, 337. 12 See, for example, climate change Response act 2002, s 45(b); hazardous Substances and New Organisms act 1996, s 120(a); human assisted Reproductive Technology act 2004, s 72; international Energy a  greement a ct 1976, s 9(3); Prostitution 13 Wilson v New Zealand Customs Service (1999) 5 h  RNZ 134.