- 23 A A home. This does not rise to the level of imminent risk to B B safety.” (paragraph 141, footnote omitted) C (2) Preservation of Evidence: “Usually the information on the cell phone will remain available pending the acquisition of a D C D search warrant. ... The mere possibility that evidence on the E cell phone could be remotely deleted should not justify a search. Furthermore, even if the suspect has an accomplice F E F with the technological skills to wipe the cell phone remotely, this threat is easily addressed by removing the cell phone’s G G battery or placing it in a ‘Faraday bag’, an inexpensive H receptacle which blocks wireless communications.” (paragraph 144) I (3) J I Discovery of evidence: “There is a cost to requiring police officers to obtain a warrant before searching an arrestee’s phone. Searches for the purposes of imminent risks to safety K H J K or the preservation of evidence are permitted under exigent L circumstances, answering the most serious of these concerns. However, the requirement to obtain a warrant will M L M sometimes mean that the police are unable to discover potentially valuable evidence or that their investigation will N N be delayed. This cost must be weighed against the privacy O interest in a phone.” (paragraph 150) from Riley at paragraph 42 above. P Q R See also the quotes 57. On the other hand, the more relaxed restrictions embodied in the Conditions as laid down in the majority judgment do not in my view O P Q R strike the right and proportionate balance, as it cannot demonstrate why S T (save in exigent circumstances) it is necessary to urgently carry out the search even for law enforcement purposes without waiting for a warrant. S T U U V V