- 6 A A not found “on” the apprehended person or “in or about the B B place at which he has been apprehended”. It therefore does C C not fall within the scope of section 50(6). D D 13. E I will consider these grounds in turn. First, the E Constitutional Ground. F F B3. The Constitutional Ground G The applicant’s principal arguments made in support of the 14. H I Constitutional Ground run as follows: (1) H A mobile phone nowadays contains massive and extensive personal J information of its owner, which information and data of private nature. I includes Such private information is subject to constitutional protection under K G J K BOR14 and BL30 against any unlawful or unauthorised L M (2) interference or invasion. L When considered in the above context of constitutional M protection of privacy, on a proper construction, section 50(6) N of the PFO cannot be intended objectively to permit police officer a search of the digital content of the mobile phone O N O seized under arrest without first having obtained specific and prior authorization by a neutral and impartial person acting P P judicially (ie, a warrant) when it is feasible or practicable to Q R Q obtain such authorization. (3) Thus, the police did not have any power to search without R warrant the digital contents of the Subject Mobile Phones S T and the Decision was therefore unlawful. make a declaration to that effect. The court should S T U U V V