Phone SeizedCompare jurisdictionsCan I get it back, or get the data deleted?

Can I get it back, or get the data deleted?

Applies to: England & Wales · Scotland · Australia · United States. The law differs materially between jurisdictions this site covers — do not apply this page outside the one named here. Law also varies by state and territory in Australia — this page does not describe every state or territory. Law also varies by state, and by federal circuit, in the United States — this page does not describe every state or circuit.

Can I get it back, or get the data deleted?

Can I get it back, or get the data deleted? — one column per jurisdiction, each answer quoted to its source.
England & Wales	Scotland	Australia	United States
A limit applies In England and Wales, information extracted from your phone that is found not relevant to the investigation must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to keep it. Getting the device itself back is a separate route: anyone with an interest in seized property may apply to a court for its return under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices: Code of Practice (Oct 2022), para 138 “Information which is extracted and deemed not relevant must be deleted unless there is a lawful basis to retain it.” Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08	A limit applies In Scotland, the same UK-wide Code of Practice requires that information extracted from a device and found not relevant to the investigation must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to keep it. Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices: Code of Practice (Oct 2022), para 138 “Information which is extracted and deemed not relevant must be deleted unless there is a lawful basis to retain it.” Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08	Not yet sourced on this site.	A limit applies In the United States, a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, or by being deprived of property, may file a motion in the district where it was seized for the property’s return. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.” Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08

England & Wales
A limit applies
In England and Wales, information extracted from your phone that is found not relevant to the investigation must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to keep it.
Getting the device itself back is a separate route: anyone with an interest in seized property may apply to a court for its return under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices: Code of Practice (Oct 2022), para 138
“Information which is extracted and deemed not relevant must be deleted unless there is a lawful basis to retain it.”
Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08
Scotland
A limit applies
In Scotland, the same UK-wide Code of Practice requires that information extracted from a device and found not relevant to the investigation must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to keep it.
Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices: Code of Practice (Oct 2022), para 138
“Information which is extracted and deemed not relevant must be deleted unless there is a lawful basis to retain it.”
Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08
Australia
Not yet sourced on this site.
United States
A limit applies
In the United States, a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, or by being deprived of property, may file a motion in the district where it was seized for the property’s return.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)
“A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.”
Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08

What you must do, what you can refuse, and what they can do

Every claim below links to the law it comes from, with the wording quoted so you can check it yourself.

Limits on them

A rule that constrains them, or a remedy you can use.

Anyone with a relevant interest in seized property may apply to the appropriate judicial authority for its return.
This is the England & Wales and Scotland route to get a seized phone back — separate from the duty to delete extracted data found not relevant, covered above.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.59(2)
“Any person with a relevant interest in the seized property may apply to the appropriate judicial authority, on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (3), for the return of the whole or a part of the seized property.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08

The short answer, country by country

In England & Wales, information extracted from your phone that is found not relevant to the investigation must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to keep it. Getting the device itself back is a separate route: anyone with an interest in seized property may apply to a court for its return under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

In Scotland, the same UK-wide Code of Practice requires that information extracted from a device and found not relevant must be deleted, unless there is a separate lawful basis to retain it.

In the United States, a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, or by being deprived of property, may file a motion in the district where it was seized for the property’s return.

In Australia, this site has not sourced a right to apply for a device’s early return or for copied data to be deleted. Australian Border Force’s own public answer on this point describes only that it does not alter or delete data during an examination — which is not the same thing as a right for a traveller to have it deleted.

Where the four differ

England & Wales and Scotland carry the clearest affirmative deletion duty of the four — irrelevant extracted data must go, by rule, not by request. The US route is a return-of-property motion aimed at the device and the underlying lawfulness of the search, not a standalone data-deletion duty. Australia is the honest gap here: an assurance that data will not be altered is not the same protection as a right to have it deleted.

Read further

See the s.59 return route in full, the deletion duty in full, the Scotland retention position, and getting a seized phone back in the US. See also How long can they keep it?

Last reviewed 2026-09-08. Next review due 2026-12-08. No lawyer has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.