- 18 A A In light of the availability of the exigent circumstances exception, there is no reason to believe that law enforcement officers will not be able to address some of the more extreme hypotheticals that have been suggested: a suspect texting an accomplice who, it is feared, is preparing to detonate a bomb, or a child abductor who may have information about the child’s location on his cell phone. The defendants here recognize—indeed, they stress—that such fact-specific threats may justify a warrantless search of cell phone data. See Reply Brief in No. 13–132, at 8–9; Brief for Respondent in No. 13–212, at 30, 41. The critical point is that, unlike the search incident to arrest exception, the exigent circumstances exception requires a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. See McNeely, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 6).” B C D E F G H C D E F G H B3.3 The search power under section 50(6) in relation to content of a seized mobile phone I J B 43. For the present purposes, the relevant words of section 50(6) I J are: “Where any person is apprehended by a police officer it shall be K L M N O P lawful for such officer to search for … any article or chattel which … the said officer reasonably suspect to be of value … to the investigation …”. 44. It is common ground among the parties that the words “article or chattel” on their plain meaning must include a mobile phone. 45. The only question is whether the words “lawful … to search for … any [mobile phone]” on a proper construction also empower the K L M N O P police officer to search without a warrant the digital content of the Q mobile phone so seized of, and if so, whether such authorization is R constitutional in complying with BOR14 and BL30. Q R S S T T U U V V