- 16 A B A 39. In Riley, the Supreme Court of the United States was B concerned with the question of whether a warrantless search of the C D content of a mobile phone seized upon arrest was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Relevantly, the Fourth C D Amendment provides: E E “… the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oaths or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” F G H F G H 40. As with section 8 of the Canadian Charter, the touchstone of I the Fourth Amendment is about “reasonableness” of a search, and I J thereunder prima facie, a warrantless search is unreasonable. J K K 41. L M The US Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion as the minority in Fearon that a warrantless common law search of the contents L of a mobile phone seized on a lawful arrest is only reasonable (and hence M constitutional) if it is made for exigent circumstances. See pp 15 - 16. N O N 42. In coming to this conclusion, again, the US Supreme Court O emphasizes the great importance in the protection of privacy rights, and P Q the fact that nowadays cell phone contains massive and very private personal information and data, which must be subjected to protection in law in the balancing exercise. R S T Q The court’s view is that the common law exception of exigent circumstances provides the appropriate balance between the interests of effective law enforcement and the importance of privacy protection. P R S In particular, one must still remember that it is always open to the police to obtain a warrant (if so justified) to search the T U U V V