Phone SeizedCompare jurisdictionsDo they need a warrant?

Do they need a warrant?

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.

Do they need a warrant?

Do they need a warrant? — one column per jurisdiction, each answer quoted to its source.
England & Wales	Scotland	Australia	United States
They can In England and Wales, once officers are lawfully on premises they may require any evidential information stored in electronic form — including on a phone — to be produced in a readable format. How officers lawfully got onto the premises — with or without a s.8 warrant — is addressed on the England & Wales pages. PACE Code B (2023), para 7.6 “If an officer considers information stored in any electronic form and accessible from the premises could be used in evidence, they may require the information to be produced in a form:— which can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible, or— from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form.” Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-09	Not yet sourced on this site.	A limit applies In Australia, an issuing officer may only issue a search warrant for premises if satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material — which can include data on a phone — will be found there. Commonwealth law; NSW/Qld/Vic have their own order regimes — see the Australia pages. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3E(1) — when a search warrant can be issued (Compilation No. 167, 27 Aug 2026) “An issuing officer may issue a warrant to search premises if the officer is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is, or there will be within the next 72 hours, any evidential material at the premises.” Read it at legislation.gov.auquote checked 2026-09-08	A limit applies In the United States, the Supreme Court held that before searching the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest, police must get a warrant. Case-specific exceptions can still justify a warrantless search in narrow circumstances — see the USA pages for when. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.” Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08

England & Wales
They can
In England and Wales, once officers are lawfully on premises they may require any evidential information stored in electronic form — including on a phone — to be produced in a readable format.
How officers lawfully got onto the premises — with or without a s.8 warrant — is addressed on the England & Wales pages.
PACE Code B (2023), para 7.6
“If an officer considers information stored in any electronic form and accessible from the premises could be used in evidence, they may require the information to be produced in a form:— which can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible, or— from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form.”
Read it at assets.publishing.service.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-09
Scotland
Not yet sourced on this site.
Australia
A limit applies
In Australia, an issuing officer may only issue a search warrant for premises if satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material — which can include data on a phone — will be found there.
Commonwealth law; NSW/Qld/Vic have their own order regimes — see the Australia pages.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3E(1) — when a search warrant can be issued (Compilation No. 167, 27 Aug 2026)
“An issuing officer may issue a warrant to search premises if the officer is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is, or there will be within the next 72 hours, any evidential material at the premises.”
Read it at legislation.gov.auquote checked 2026-09-08
United States
A limit applies
In the United States, the Supreme Court held that before searching the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest, police must get a warrant.
Case-specific exceptions can still justify a warrantless search in narrow circumstances — see the USA pages for when.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.”
Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08

The short answer, country by country

In England & Wales, once officers are already lawfully on premises, PACE Code B lets them require evidential information stored electronically — including on a phone — to be produced, without a separate warrant application for that step. How officers lawfully got onto the premises in the first place is its own question, covered on the England & Wales pages.

In Australia, an issuing officer may only issue a search warrant for premises if satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material — which can include data on a phone — will be found there.

In the United States, the Supreme Court held in Riley v. California that police must get a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest, subject to narrow case-specific exceptions.

This site has not separately sourced a Scottish warrant provision for this row, beyond the general seizure power covered on Can they take my phone?

Where the four differ — the strongest contrast on this page

This is the sharpest divide in the whole comparison. In the United States, a warrant to search a phone’s contents is the constitutional default the Supreme Court itself set out. In England & Wales, the equivalent step — requiring production of what is already accessible on a device once officers are lawfully present — does not depend on a separate warrant application at all. Australia sits closer to the US model: a warrant, issued on reasonable grounds, is the route in.

Read further

See what happens to a seized phone in England & Wales, computer access orders in Australia, and Riley v. California in full. See also Can they take my phone? and What can they actually get?

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.