- 15 A B A and privacy is essential “to human dignity, to democracy, and to self-determination”. C D The law, in balancing legitimate state interests (including safety and securing evidence in law enforcement) with privacy interests of individuals, requires generally judicial pre-authorization for a search, and a warrantless search is prima facie unreasonable. E D E paragraph 103. F 36. H C See: F G B Given the high importance of the constitutional protection of privacy right, they are of the view that warrantless search incidental to arrest is and should only be limited to “exigent circumstances” (as has G H been the position under common law), which include circumstances I J where there is a reasonable basis to suspect a search may prevent (a) the imminent loss or destruction of evidence, or (b) an imminent threat to I J police or public safety. See: paragraphs 175 - 179. K L K 37. The minority are of the view that the majority’s conclusion L in modifying and expanding the common law right to be subjected to the M M Conditions (instead of only in exigent circumstances) does not provide a N O sufficient protection of the privacy right (given that mobile phones contain such extensive and important personal data and information), is N O too uncertain in practice, and places the balancing decision into the hands P Q of the police as to whether the Conditions are satisfied in a given circumstance (which was inappropriate and undesirable). See: P Q paragraphs 170 - 172. R S R 38. I now turn to look at briefly the case of Riley. S T T U U V V