高院裁警有搜令始可查市民手機 警方上訴得直
極速神驅
859 回覆
66 Like
826 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁第 32 頁第 33 頁第 34 頁第 35 頁
就四章嘅中坑
19年20年醒晒下話？洗唔洗開個賭盤睇下dead body選唔選到？
無意思啦
黑警話合理就合理
又唔會有後果
黑警話合理就合理
又唔會有後果
法治你個西
我都想知，如果係，普通都要整個double desktop app
亂咁捉人已經被捕，咁就查得電話。
由始至終香港班所謂法官根本就係幫政府限制自由，而唔係限制政府既權力
由始至終香港班所謂法官根本就係幫政府限制自由，而唔係限制政府既權力
屌老母真係
宜家法治已死既香港
有無搜查令都無咩分別
反正搜查令又係求其搵過紅官就有
有無搜查令都無咩分別
反正搜查令又係求其搵過紅官就有
Iphone 所hack 到？ 勁撚過FBI ?
2）在這沒手令的搜查，雖然警方可粗略快睇手機內容，搜查的範圍有限制：僅限於與調查或保護其他人相關。
白痴，唔睇過又點知係唔係相關
白痴，唔睇過又點知係唔係相關
即係叫全世界咪再用指模解鎖
3）一旦搜查完，警員要給予充份的書面紀錄，告訴被捕人士有關搜查的目的及範圍。
目的：你被補，要搜集證據
範圍：電話
以家問你夠唔夠充分
目的：你被補，要搜集證據
範圍：電話
以家問你夠唔夠充分
屌你老母死法官
點定義快睇？點定義佢合理懷疑我？
讀咁撚多書做咁嘅位都咁撚偏幫
點定義快睇？點定義佢合理懷疑我？
讀咁撚多書做咁嘅位都咁撚偏幫
打short form 快好多
omdb
omdb
上訴庭重申既內容根本就空泛，差左無講埋我相信佢地專業既判斷
樓上班話黑警大曬嘅人
其實原先原訟庭嘅判詞
都係話「緊急情況」下警察可以無需手令搜查手機
你睇返判詞對於乜嘢情況下警察可以咁做
就會見到上訴庭只係paraphrase一下
實質上無放寬度
原訟庭:
'... [A] police officer is authorized to search it without warrant only in exigent circumstances. The exigent circumstances are where, when a person has been lawfully arrested under section 50, the police officer “may reasonably suspect” (as the standard now laid down by the provision) such an urgent search may
(a) prevent an imminent threat to safety of the public or police officers,
(b) prevent imminent loss or destruction of evidence, and
(c) lead to the discovery of evidence in extremely urgent and vulnerable situation.'
上訴庭:
'... when it is not reasonably practicable to obtain such warrant before a search is conducted, the police officer must also have a reasonable basis for having to conduct the search immediately as being necessary (i) for the investigation of the offence(s) for which the person was suspected to be involved, including the procurement and preservation of information or evidence connected with such offences; or
(ii) for the protection of the safety of persons (including the victim(s) of the crime, members of the public in the vicinity, the arrested person and the police officers at the scene);'
（i）咪即係（a） +（c）
其實原先原訟庭嘅判詞
都係話「緊急情況」下警察可以無需手令搜查手機
你睇返判詞對於乜嘢情況下警察可以咁做
就會見到上訴庭只係paraphrase一下
實質上無放寬度
原訟庭:
'... [A] police officer is authorized to search it without warrant only in exigent circumstances. The exigent circumstances are where, when a person has been lawfully arrested under section 50, the police officer “may reasonably suspect” (as the standard now laid down by the provision) such an urgent search may
(a) prevent an imminent threat to safety of the public or police officers,
(b) prevent imminent loss or destruction of evidence, and
(c) lead to the discovery of evidence in extremely urgent and vulnerable situation.'
上訴庭:
'... when it is not reasonably practicable to obtain such warrant before a search is conducted, the police officer must also have a reasonable basis for having to conduct the search immediately as being necessary (i) for the investigation of the offence(s) for which the person was suspected to be involved, including the procurement and preservation of information or evidence connected with such offences; or
(ii) for the protection of the safety of persons (including the victim(s) of the crime, members of the public in the vicinity, the arrested person and the police officers at the scene);'
（i）咪即係（a） +（c）
