- 12 A B A arrested suspected of committing the robbery. The search was made B without a warrant. The applicant argued that the warrantless search was C D in breach of his constitutionally protected right to privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter, and thus the evidence obtained was unlawful C D and not admissible. The trial judge rejected the challenge and admitted E F the evidence. He was convicted of the offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, which was based on the constitutional challenge of E F the search and the admission of the evidence. He further appealed to the G Supreme Court of Canada. H H 26. I J The Supreme Court unanimously recognised that nowadays mobile phones raise significant and important privacy protection concerns as they are akin to personal computer containing extensive personal information and data. K G I J See paragraphs 51 - 52, per Cromwell J, and 100 - 102, per Karakatsanis J. L K L 27. However, by majority (McLachlin CJ, Cromwell, Moldaver M M and Wagner JJ, judgment delivered by Cromwell J), the appeal was N O dismissed. The majority were of the view that the common law right for the police to search the content of the mobile phone seized on arrest, N O which was subject to a number of conditions as revised by the majority in P the judgment, was constitutionally compliant. Q Q 28. R The majority’s reasons for finding that the common law right to search was constitutional in gist are as follows. S R S 29. T P Section 8 of the Canadian Charter provides that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. T U U V V