- 33 A B A warrantless search of the digital content of a seized mobile phone which B is in line with the Conditions, and which is complaint with BOR14 and C C BL30. D D B3.4 Conclusion on the Constitutional Ground E E 77. F G For all the above reasons, on a proper construction, I conclude that section 50(6) only authorises a police officer to search without warrant the digital contents of mobile phones seized on arrest F G only in exigent circumstances. Section 50(6) insofar as it so authorizes H I a warrantless search of the digital contents of mobile phones seized on arrest only in exigent circumstances is BOR14 and BL30 compliant and H I thus constitutional. J K J 78. In relation to this, I would like to add two further K observations. L M N O P L 79. First, I have referred to above that the protection against M warrantless search save in exigent circumstances is in relation to the “digital” contents of mobile phones seized on arrest, as it is that information that attracts a heightened expectation of privacy. This however does not extend to cover the physical devices themselves. N O P Hence, warrantless searches that treat a mobile phone merely as a Q R physical object continue to be permissible incident to arrest under section 50(6) (as in common law). As said by Karakatsanis J in Fearon Q R at paragraph 155, for example, seizing a cell phone, searching for hidden S compartments, testing that cell phone for fingerprints, or reading the S T T U U V V