- 30 A B A “legal procedures” and to “meet the needs of public security or of B investigation into criminal offences”. The relevant “legal procedure” is C D the guidance laid down in common law on what constitute exigent circumstances and that the police officer must “reasonably suspect” (as C D provided in section 50(6)) that such exigent situations do arise in the E E circumstances of the case as explained above. F F 67. G H Mr Mok on the other hand seeks to contend that the court should adopt the majority judgment in Fearon for the purpose of construing the warrantless search power under section 50(6). He G H submits that such statutory power of search in relation to mobile phone I J digital content is also constitutionally compliant as the Conditions provide a fair balance between effective law enforcement and protection I J of privacy as explained by the majority, and meet the “in accordance with K L legal procedure” requirement under BL30. He also says the 4th condition as a matter of procedure, albeit not expressed in the statutory K L provision, is in practice governed by Data Protection Principles of the M N PDPO, the Police General Orders (“PGO”) 44-05(6) 13 M and the FPM 21 - 51, paragraphs 33, 36 and 64. O O 68. P With respect, I am also not convinced by Mr Mok’s submissions. Q S T P Q 69. R N First, for the reasons I have explained above, the Conditions do not meet the proportionality test in providing a proportionate balance R Which states “Having conducted any form of search, an officer will make a notebook entry as required by PGO53-01. The notebook entry will contain the particulars of the subject, the time, date and location of the search, the scope of the search, the reason for conducting the search, details of the witnessing/guarding officer and, where appropriate, details of the authorizing officer.” S 13 T U U V V