A majority of the Supreme Court, led by Cromwell J, affirmed the validity of the search incident to arrest framework as set out in R v Caslake and R v Golden.

The majority rejected an outright categorical prohibition on warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest, finding that this would conflict with valid law enforcement objectives, including police and general public safety, and noting that a cell phone search is not necessarily a significant privacy invasion.

[8] The majority equally rejected a moderate approach that would require reasonable and probable grounds for a cell phone search incident to arrest, again finding that this would hamper and undermine law enforcement objectives.

The majority also dismissed an approach that would allow cell phone searches incident to arrest only in exigent circumstances, finding that this would "effectively gut"[9] police powers and would conflict with established Supreme Court jurisprudence on this issue.

Although the search of Fearon's phone impinged on his privacy, the breach was not particularly serious, and the police legitimately believed that they were acting reasonably and in good faith.

Individuals can, while walking down the street, converse with family on the other side of the world, browse vast stores of human knowledge and information over the Internet, or share a video, photograph or comment about their experiences with a legion of friends and followers.

Our digital footprint is often enough to reconstruct the events of our lives, our relationships with others, our likes and dislikes, our fears, hopes, opinions, beliefs and ideas.

"[11]The dissenting judges noted the law enforcement objectives set out by the majority but suggested that they would be more fairly balanced with privacy interests given a modification of the common-law framework allowing warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest only in exigent circumstances.

The dissenting judges would also have excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, on the basis of the seriousness of the breach of Fearon's substantial privacy interest in the contents of his cell phone.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic suggested that the decision "transforms the traditional incident to arrest search into a far broader fishing expedition".