- 39 A A applications that allow the user to store files remotely. Moreover, someone examining the device may not be able to identify what is stored remotely.” (emphasis added) B C D B C 92. Thus, without any cogent evidence to support it, it is not D correct for Mr Pun to say as a general proposition that all data and E F G information which can be viewed via the cell phones is stored in a place other than the phone itself.16 93. F In the premises, I also reject the Construction Ground. H CONCLUSION I I 94. For the above reasons: J J (1) K On a proper construction, in relation to the digital content of a mobile phone (or a similar device) seized on arrest, section 50(6) authorizes police officers to search it without L warrant only in exigent circumstances. (2) N phones seized on arrest only in with BOR14 and BL30. P O I therefore will refuse to grant the unconstitutionality declaration sought. Q P Q 16 T N exigent circumstances, section 50(6) is constitutional and compliant O L M In authorizing a warrantless search of the digital content of mobile K I will make a declaration to that effect. M S G H C. R E Mr McCoy separately submits that the digital information cannot be regarded as “documents” for the purpose of section 50(6) at the time of arrest as “the digital information inside the mobile phone is not yet in the form of a document”. Hence, leading counsel continues, while a police officer can “search for” that record, it is impossible, in the circumstances of exercising the power under section 50(6), to “take possession” of that record. With respect, given that the court is satisfied that the police could take possession of an “article or chattel” (which includes a cell phone) under section 50(6) and search the digital information of the phone as an article or chattel (albeit only in exigent circumstances), this contention is neither here nor there. R S T U U V V