The Rented Room: Warrantless Entry, a Scrolling Phone and a Phone Call from a Leader
At 21:30 a patrol receives a tip that a motorcycle reported stolen nine days earlier is inside a rented second-floor room. The tenant is not at home. The landlord opens the door with his master key and says the tenant moved in three weeks ago and is behind on rent. Inside, the officers see the motorcycle with a scratched engine number, a smartphone on the bed still unlocked and showing a chat, a diary, and Rs 45,000 in cash. A constable begins scrolling the chat and photographs three screens with his personal phone. The landlord refuses to sign the search list, saying he does not want trouble with the tenant. A neighbour is willing to witness. The tenant's brother arrives, claims the phone and the cash are his, and demands them back. At 22:10 a local political leader calls the inspector and asks that the motorcycle be released to the tenant's family "to keep peace in the ward".
1. Assess the lawfulness of the entry and search, and state what the inspector must do to regularise the record.
Read the worked answer
Three separate issues must be separated: entry, seizure, and documentation.
Entry. A landlord's consent cannot authorise a search of premises in the tenant's exclusive possession - the landlord has no authority over the room's contents. The lawful basis, if any, is the reasonable belief that stolen property is present and may be removed or destroyed, which justifies immediate action. The motorcycle visible from the doorway supports seizure under the plain-view principle.
Seizure. The motorcycle is directly linked to the reported theft. The diary and the cash need independent, recorded reasons; "it was on the bed" is not a reason.
Documentation. The National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 requires a search to be made in the presence of two independent witnesses, with a search list prepared and signed. The inspector should:
- record that the landlord declined to sign and why, and have the neighbour and a second witness sign;
- prepare the list item by item, with engine and chassis numbers, cash denomination and phone serial/IMEI;
- give or affix a copy for the absent occupant and note the time;
- write the grounds for proceeding without a warrant into the case diary immediately, not the next morning.
A search that was arguably justified can still fail in court because of a defective memo.
2. What is wrong with the handling of the smartphone, and how should the data be dealt with?
Read the worked answer
The constable's conduct creates two problems at once: an unjustified intrusion into private data and the destruction of the evidence's authenticity.
Privacy. Article 28 of the Constitution makes data and correspondence inviolable except in accordance with law. Scrolling an unlocked chat goes beyond securing the device. The inspector should stop the constable immediately.
Authenticity. Photographing screens with a personal phone produces images with no hash value, no metadata chain and possible contamination by the officer's own device. Such images are easy to challenge and hard to defend.
Correct handling:
- Switch the phone off or place it in a signal-blocking bag, and record the serial/IMEI, the condition and who handled it.
- Seal it, label it, and enter it in the property register with a chain-of-custody form.
- Apply for judicial authorisation to extract data, and use a forensic tool to make a verified copy with a hash value.
- Extract only what the authorisation covers; chat content may be relevant, but relevance is decided after lawful extraction, not during a browse.
- If the brother claims the phone, decide ownership on evidence - purchase receipt, box, IMEI, statements - and release on a signed receipt if it is not required.
The constable's three photographs should be retained and disclosed, not deleted: concealment would be worse than the error.
3. How should the inspector respond to the political leader's call, and to the competing claim over the motorcycle?
Read the worked answer
The call has no legal effect and must be treated as a request, not an instruction.
Handling the call. The inspector thanks the caller, explains that the motorcycle is case property, and records the call - time, number, substance - in the station diary the same night. The range chief is informed in writing. Recording it protects the inspector if a complaint is later made that property was or was not released.
Handling the claim. The motorcycle is released only to a person who proves ownership: registration book, purchase documents, engine and chassis number matching the theft report, and a statement. The release is made on a receipt, with the witness present, and entered in the property register. If the motorcycle is still required for investigation, it is retained and the claimant is told the legal route to apply for its return.
The cash and phone. The brother's claim is tested, not accepted or rejected on impression. If they are not required, they are returned on an inventory signed by him; if they are required, he is given a receipt and told where to apply.
Releasing property to keep ward peace is precisely how evidence disappears and how an officer later faces a corruption allegation.