- 7 A A (4) B However, if section 50(6) does authorize a warrantless B search of the digital content of a seized mobile phone other C than in circumstances when it is not feasible or practicable to obtain such authorization, it is unconstitutional as it infringes D an individual’s privacy disproportionately and unlawfully and is thus inconsistent with BOR14 and BL30. E The C D E Decision is therefore also unlawful. F G F 15. In support of these contentions, Mr Pun SC (together with G Mr Newman Lam) for the applicant rely principally on the minority H I judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Fearon [2014] 3 SCR 621 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Riley v California 573 US__ (2014). J K H I These two cases concern the constitutionality of the common law right for police to search the content of cell phones seized upon arrest respectively in Canada and the United J K States. L M L 16. Mr McCoy SC (for the 2nd interested party) and M Mr Albert Wong (for the 1st, 3rd and 4th interested parties) in substance N N support the applicant’s submissions. 2 O P O 17. Mr Mok SC (with Mr Jonathan Chang and P Mr Antony Leung) for the Commissioner however submit otherwise. In Q R principle, Mr Mok submits that on a proper construction, section 50(6) plainly authorizes a search, including a search of the content, of a mobile 2 S T It is the applicant’s case that mobile phones of the four interested parties (who also participated in the procession on 1 July 2014) had also been seized and retained by the police upon their arrests. However, the circumstances relating to the interested parties and retention of mobile phones are irrelevant for the present purposes. Suffice to say that the Commissioner has not objected to them being so joined in these proceedings. I therefore would not set out their circumstances in this judgment. Q R S T U U V V