OTTAWA—The federal Conservative government hailed a narrow 4-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision Thursday that upholds the power of police to scroll through a suspect’s cellphones without a warrant — a ruling that dismayed privacy experts.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said it struck the “exact balance that Canadians would expect when it comes to protecting their privacy rights while at the same time putting moderate tools in the hands of police to protect Canadians when it comes to their investigation.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association called it a “significant blow to the privacy rights of average Canadians.”

It was a judgment that sharply diverged from the approach taken by the Supreme Court of the United States earlier this year, which said generally police may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from a person who has been arrested.

Privacy experts said it departs from the Canadian court’s strong embrace in recent decisions of individual digital privacy rights. And in a strong dissenting opinion, three judges in the minority said the ruling sets up an unwieldy and impractical scheme.

The ruling essentially modified years of judge-made law around police search powers at the time of arrest. The high court came up with four new conditions police must meet to ensure warrantless searches of a suspect’s cellphone meet constitutional muster:

What do you think?

An arrest must be lawful.

The search of the cellphone must take place promptly.

The search must be tailored or directly related to the investigation at hand. The court said police would be justified in looking at recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and call logs but don’t have “licence to rummage around in the device at will.”

Police must take “detailed notes” of what private information they looked at and for how long — in order to aid a court to later rule whether the search was justified.

The Ruling View document on Scribd

MacKay said it was encouraging news for the government’s legislation of warrantless access to computer users’ meta-data under a new cyber-bullying bill, and is “consistent with our aim to give the police the ability to further those investigations when it comes to online.”

The high court acknowledged cellphones contain a treasure trove of private information. But a slim majority led by Justice Thomas Cromwell, joined by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Michael Moldaver and Richard Wagner, ruled an individual’s privacy interest in their mobile device — whether locked with a password or unlocked — must give way to law enforcement objectives, such as protecting officer safety, preserving or discovering evidence, when an arrest is made as long as police follow the new rules.

The court was deeply divided. Three dissenting judges said cellphones are not weapons, are not bags or briefcases that could conceal a weapon, and are so tied to Canadians’ personal identities that the constitutional balance between privacy and public safety can be struck only by requiring police to seek a warrant, or a tele-warrant if there were a need to move quickly.

The ruling dismissed the appeal of Kevin Fearon, who has served a six-year sentence for the 2009 armed robbery of a jewelry vendor at a Downsview market. The court concluded police had good reason to search Fearon’s phone after they frisked him just hours after the robbery. They were searching for a handgun, which possibly is still out on the street, and stolen jewelry that could be easily hidden or sold.

The majority found under the new test, Fearon’s rights were breached because the officers had not taken detailed notes, but called it a minor breach given that police had acted in good faith at a time when the law was unclear. Cromwell said the evidence the cellphone search provided should not be tossed out because to do so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Fearon’s lawyer Sam Goldstein was disappointed but said the ruling was still “a step forward for the protection of digital privacy.”

Anne Cavoukian, a former Ontario privacy commissioner and now head of Ryerson University’s Privacy and Big Data Institute, said it was “unbelievable to me that the justices would say no problem, you don’t need a warrant.”

“Searching a cellphone upon arrest without a warrant, is in our view, akin to finding a house key in a pat down search and then using that key to conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee’s house,” Sukanya Pillay, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

They warned it will create an impractical scheme for police and for protecting privacy, and generate more litigation.