- 32 A B A 72. The reliance on PGO 44-05(6) is similarly misplaced as that is concerned with the search of “persons” C 14 but not searches of mobile C phones. D D 73. E F G H B Finally, the FPM are internal guidelines not accessible or known to the public, which therefore do not satisfy the “prescribed by law” requirement. 74. E F In response, Mr Mok submits that the Commissioner would undertake to publish the FPM if the court regards that as necessary. G H However, this readiness to publish the guidelines later if so required I cannot assist the submissions as to whether, as a matter of proper J construction, the warrantless search power provided under section 50(6) I J in relation to the digital content of mobile phones satisfy the requirements K K of BL30. L M L 75. In any event FPM 21 - 51 properly read as a whole is in M substance concerned with how to properly preserve the digital evidence N O stored in a seized mobile phone as evidence, but not prescribing procedures that would take into account and safeguard the privacy right N O of the person that the phone belongs to against abuse. It therefore would P Q not render the warrantless search power (if for circumstances other than exigent ones) proportionate. See: Keen Lloyd, paragraphs 62 and 69 (as P Q summarized at paragraph 22(3) above). R S R 76. In the premises, I reject Mr Mok’s submissions that S section 50(6) provides a power for the police officer to conduct T T 14 PGO 44-05 is entitled “Search of Persons”. U U V V