Court allows police to search phones in cannabis case

Iceland’s Court of Appeal has upheld an order allowing police to examine and copy two mobile phones belonging to a man suspected of involvement in cannabis production, mbl.is reported. The authorisation also covers data that may be stored in cloud services or other online storage.

The man had challenged a Reykjavik District Court ruling issued on October 27, seeking to have it overturned. Police argued that it should stand. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling on October 29, referring to the district court’s reasoning.

The district court found there were reasonable grounds to suspect the man of offences under drug laws, which could carry a prison sentence of up to six years if he were convicted. It also said examining the phones could yield important evidence.

Police said the search was needed to clarify the man’s alleged role and identify possible associates. Information on the phones could shed light on communications and the organisation of the suspected cannabis production, the police argued.

The investigation began after more than 200 cannabis plants were found on June 25. Two men were arrested that day on suspicion of involvement in the production. The man who challenged the phone-search order and a woman were arrested the following day. Police documents also state that more than 150 cannabis plants were found at another location on June 28.

The two phones were seized when the man was arrested again. He did not consent to police searching them or obtaining telecommunications data.

He argued in the district court that the search would unjustifiably interfere with his privacy. He said police had found nothing incriminating on him when he was arrested on June 26 and that the interests of the investigation did not justify the search.

The district court rejected those arguments. It said the search was authorised by applying provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act by analogy, in line with previous court decisions on searches of mobile phones. The court found the request no broader than necessary, noting that it was not possible to know in advance which data might be relevant or where it would be stored. It also expected police to act proportionately and maintain confidentiality during the investigation.