高院裁警有搜令始可查市民手機　警方上訴得直

What should I use ? Frankly

當前線果班都冇搞革命嘅意識，但就要做依啲革命行為，咁已經唔係自殺咁簡單，係攬住隊友，甚至隊友全家一齊死呀

法官都係狗

問下dead body法治死得未

屌

一個主動賣台
一個冇主動賣 不過睇住香港法制被大規模侵蝕而選擇堅持法治未淪亡自欺欺人

你覺得班狗會理？
非法取證班所謂法官都唔理喇
根本新係司法行政合作俾晒位班狗擴權

有險可守？

Cls
再上訴啦

佢欺騙自己就算啦，依家佢係欺騙香港人甚至其實係有份欺騙美國佬架喎

冇錯
法庭同意被捕即合理懷疑
咁叫法庭處理左而家大量被捕但冇檢控嘅積壓案件先啦，而家根本就係濫捕，黑警拉人撚有合理懷疑咩

法官睇住法治崩壞而唔阻止根本就係共犯

平時出街同做野分開兩部係常識啦, 定期清TG對話記錄又係常識啦
不過實有人唔會咁做,
好似雨革有人俾黑警查就自爆有份丟磚又有

CLS

diu

//122. Any suggestion that the police de-activate the screen-lock or power-off function pending a warrant is impractical. That is because, given the modern security features of smartphones, a person would need to input the password (whether alpha-numerical or biometric) in order to de-activate the screen-lock or power-off function. A police officer not provided with the password (and in this respect, we would point out, the police could not under the law compel the arrestee to provide the password), simply could not de-activate the function.//
份Judgement仲確立咗樣好緊要嘅嘢
就算班狗有權開電話睇都無權強迫被捕者俾alpha-numerical/biometric嘅密碼去開部機 要開都要班狗靠自己能力去開 所以點保護部電話先係重點

3權合作完成