Internet mogul Kim Dotcom has confirmed he will take yesterday's ruling on the 2012 raid on his home to the country's highest court.
The Court of Appeal ruled in a decision released yesterday that the raid was legal, overturning High Court ruling it unlawful.
The raid was related to efforts to extradite the Megaupload founder to the United States to face charges including breaching copyright.
"We will seek leave to appeal yesterdays 'defectueux' Court of Appeal decision to the NZ Supreme Court. #PardonMyFrench" he tweeted this afternoon.
Dotcom was clearly frustrated with the judgement - the latest in an ongoing series of conflicting decisions in his extradition case.
"Ping Pong Ping Pong . . . AKL WLG AKL WLG . . . Live Die Live Die . . ., " Dotcom tweeted.
"That's why a political case needs to be fought politically. Not just in the courts."
The decision about the search of Dotcom's Coatesville home in Auckland's rural north, also said that while the search was lawful, the decision to provide copies of data taken in the raid to the FBI was unauthorised.
The finding about the raid may eventually affect Dotcom's extradition hearing, due in April but likely also to be delayed, as he previously wanted to argue the evidence against him was inadmissible because it was taken illegally.
Police executed search warrants on the properties of Dotcom and computer programmer Bram van der Kolk on January 20, 2012, seizing 135 electronic items including laptops, computers, portable hard drives, flash storage devices and servers.
The High Court ruled last June the search warrants were invalid because they were not sufficiently specific.
However, in its judgment released yesterday, the Court of Appeal said that while the warrants were defective in some respects, the deficiencies were not sufficient to mean they should be nullified.
The case will be the second he has taken to the Supreme Court. A decision on "disclosure" - how much information he should be allowed to have about the case against him in the US - is awaiting a decision.
Should MPs be able to swear to uphold the principles of the Treaty?Related story: Oath wording strikes MP discord