COMMON LAW REASONING AND INSTITUTIONS CASE NOTE Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex Parte Rottman UKHL 20 (2002) 2A.C. 692s.rn:130355977Regina v Police Commissioner for the Metropolis, Ex Parte Rottman16 May 2002.Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.Procedural history:On appeal from a division court of the Queen's decision in the House of Lords. Rottman brought a judicial review against the metropolitan police commissioner and the Minister of the Interior due to the decision made by the police officer to enter the defendant's home to search and seize objects believed to be material evidence. The Divisional Court held that the entry and search carried out by the police officer was unlawful and that the defendant's rights had been breached under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). However, the House of Lords allowed the appeal finding that the police officer had the power to search based on the execution of an arrest warrant. Material facts: The accused Mr. Rottman was a German businessman suspected of a fraud crime arrested just meters from his front door after he was seen in a car with his family pulling into the driveway of a property in High Wycombe. Subsequently, two police officers obtained permission from the senior Metropolis officer to search the house and seize any property or documents, including computers, believed to be material evidence in relation to the extradition crime in respect of which the warrant had been issued. .middle sheet ......items which they reasonably believed constituted material evidence in relation to the crime for which they had arrested that person.Lord Nicholls and Lord HoffmanLord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman agreed with the reasons Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger submitted and the appeal was accepted. Lord Hope of Craighead According to Lord Hope, the common law power of search and seizure after the execution of an issued arrest warrant was not extinguished under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the police officers had been authorized to exercise the common law power after the arrest of the accused. The common law power of search and seizure after arrest did not breach the defendant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. The common law power had the legitimate purpose of preventing crime and the disappearance of physical evidence after the arrest of a suspect.