- 28 A A privacy interests in our personal computers. Thus, I conclude that the police must obtain a warrant before they can search an arrested person’s phone or other personal digital communications device. Our common law already provides flexibility where there are exigent circumstances – when the safety of officer or the public is at stake, or when a search is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence.” B C D E F 63. In other words, adopting the exception of exigent circumstances for warrantless search in law provides a clearer, more B C D E F certain and practicable guidance on the circumstances as to when the G H police are empowered and entitled to search the digital content of a seized mobile phone upon arrest under section 50(6). This greater clarity, G H certainty and practicality further defines and thus justifies a proportionate, I I and hence permitted, intrusion into privacy without prior authorization J under BOR14. This is also consistent with the observations in Keen J Lloyd where our Court of Appeal emphasizes that a statutory power of K K search must also be certain and ascertainable to make it BOR14 L compliant. See paragraph 22(4) above. L M M 64. N O In the premises, on a proper purposive construction of section 50(6), insofar as to the digital content of a mobile phone seized upon arrest is concerned, a police officer is authorized to search it without 10 warrant only in exigent circumstances. P 10 R S T O The exigent circumstances are P Q N In this respect, Mr Pun has submitted that the legislature could not have in mind at the time of amending section 50(6) in 1992 the privacy concerns relating to mobile phone contents (in particular the massive scale and extent of private information and data that could nowadays be stored in or accessed through the phone). In the premises, he therefore contends that section 50(6) cannot be construed to apply to mobile phone contents. I do not agree. It is usual for the court in construing statutes, in particular those which concern with matters of the ever evolving areas of technology, to apply the statute is always speaking principle to cater for new circumstances which were not within the minds of the legislature at the time of enactment, so long as that would not be contrary to the statute’s express words or clear objectives. See: this court’s judgment in Hong Kong Mobile Television Network Ltd v Office of the Communication Authority [2016] 2 HKC 44 at paragraphs 57 - 60 and the authorities cited therein. See also: Halsbury’s Law of England, Vol 96 (2012), 5th ed, paragraph 1175. For the reasons I have explained at paragraphs 49 - 53 above, I do not find this interpretation Q R S T U U V V