- 21 A B A 52. The court notes that the amendment was made to address the B question of “arbitrariness” related to conducting a warrantless search C D without linking it to the crime the arrested person is suspected of having committed. However, from the above, it is also clear that it was C D objectively intended by both the authority and the legislature that E F section 50(6) in its present form is to be BOR14 compliant by bringing it in line with the corresponding common law principles governing E F warrantless search. G H G 53. In the premises, on a proper construction with the above H objective legislative intention, the warrantless search power provided I J under section 50(6) is intended to be one which would correspond with the relevant common law principles and meet the proportionality I J requirement in its interference with a person’s privacy right. K L K 54. In relation to this, I agree with Mr Pun that the minority’s L view on the common law power of search in Fearon is to be preferred in M M providing the right balance between the protection of privacy right and N O P Q the interests of effective law enforcement in meeting the proportionality test in Hong Kong context. 55. In my view, given the high importance in protecting the massive and extensive personal information and data, and to give N O P Q meaningful effect to the constitutionally protected right to privacy and R S freedom of private communication against unlawful intrusion, it is only proportionate to achieve the objective of effective law enforcement by R S permitting warrantless search for the digital content of mobile phones T seized on arrest only in exigent circumstances. The said approach and T U U V V