"Access" under s.116B includes your password. What Malaysian police can and can't do with your phone.

Your phone holds more about you than your house does. Messages, photos, location history, banking, medical records, everything you've ever searched.

So when an officer says "bagi saya tengok phone," it's worth knowing precisely what the law lets them do — because it is narrower than the police said in January 2025, and wider than most people assume once you've been arrested.

1. What happened in January 2025

Worth setting out, because it's the clearest public statement of the disagreement.

13 January 2025 — responding to a viral video of a person questioning police checking a phone during an arrest, IGP Tan Sri Razarudin Husain said police can conduct mobile phone checks based on reasonable suspicion, citing section 249 of the CMA 1998 (access to computerised data) and section 116B CPC (phones treated as computerised data where a person is suspected of committing a crime). Only officers of Inspector rank or higher are authorised.

He later framed it more broadly — that an inspector-and-above could inspect a phone if they suspected an offence, including whether there was "obscene or offensive" content.

15 January 2025 — the pushback. Lawyers for Liberty said none of the provisions cited empower police to check the phones of "whomever they please at roadblocks or elsewhere." Routine phone checks are illegal. Police cannot check phones "except in the course of an ongoing investigation or search," and:

checks must be targeted at specific individuals connected to or sought within a criminal investigation, and there must be reasonable suspicion of their involvement

18 January 2025 — SUHAKAM. The Human Rights Commission said it was "deeply perturbed," and set out the position: under s.116B, an officer of inspector rank or above may access a device only subject to a legal search as part of an ongoing investigation where there is reasonable cause to believe an offence has been or is being committed. Sections 247 and 248 CMA carry the same requirement.

SUHAKAM added practical guidance: document any phone search conducted without reasonable cause — location, officer's details — and report it.

February 2025 — the Home Ministry told Parliament that police do not conduct arbitrary phone inspections at roadblocks unless there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime, and that anyone who believes their phone was searched unlawfully can complain to the IPCC.

Our read: the IGP's January statement was broader than the statutory position, civil society said so, and the Ministry's clarification landed closer to the lawyers than to the original statement.

2. Section 116B — and why "access" is the alarming word

Here is the provision that actually matters.

Section 116B provides that a police officer conducting a search under the CPC is to be given access to computerised data, whether stored in a computer or otherwise.

And "access" is defined expressly to include being provided with:

• the necessary password
• the encryption code
• the decryption code
• software or hardware
• and any other means required to enable comprehension of the data

Read that carefully. This is not a power to look at a screen you're holding. Where it applies, it is a power to require you to hand over the keys to your digital life.

But note the conditional at the front: conducting a search under the CPC. Section 116B is not a freestanding power to inspect phones. It attaches to a search that is already lawful under some other provision. No lawful search, no s.116B.

That's the entire argument in one sentence, and it's why the lawyers were on solid ground.

3. When a phone search IS authorised

Four routes, in rough order of how likely you are to encounter them.

On arrest — section 20 CPC. A person who has been arrested may be searched. Section 116B applies to that search. So once you are lawfully arrested, your phone is within reach, with the search conducted by an officer of Inspector rank or above.

This is the most common real-world scenario, and it's why the arrest/not-arrest distinction matters so much. See also: [What happens in the first 24 hours after arrest](/p/pdrm-you-re-under-arrest)

Section 116A — search and seizure without warrant. Where an officer not below the rank of Inspector has reasonable cause to suspect evidence of a security offence or organised crime — terrorism, gangsterism, triad-type offences — and reasonable grounds to believe delay would allow removal of evidence. This is a narrow category, not a roadblock power.

Under a search warrant. Where premises are searched under warrant, persons in the place searched may be searched under s.17 CPC, and s.116B applies. See also: [Police at your door with no warrant](/p/can-the-malaysian-police-enter-your-house-without-a-warrant)

CMA sections 247–249. Access to computerised data under the Communications and Multimedia Act — again requiring connection to an ongoing investigation with reasonable cause to believe an offence has been committed.

The common thread across all four: an existing lawful basis and a specific investigation. Not curiosity, not a general sweep, not "let's see what's on there."

4. Section 116C — the one nobody talks about

Separate from searching a phone in your hand, there's interception.

Section 116C gives law enforcement wide powers to intercept communications that may be evidence of an offence.

Who authorises it: the Public Prosecutor — the Attorney General, the Solicitor General in certain circumstances, or a DPP appointed by the PP — may authorise a police officer to intercept any message transmitted or received. See also: [One person is the government's lawyer AND decides who gets prosecuted](/p/attorney-general-public-prosecutor-malaysia-role-criminal-court)

What it extends to:

• Requiring a communications service provider to intercept and retain specified communications
• Authorising a police officer to enter premises and install an interception device, and later remove and retain it

"Offence" is defined very broadly under the CPC — any act or omission punishable by any law in force, including money laundering and gambling.

And s.116C is silent on whether a warrant is required, which depends on the offence and circumstances.

You will not know if this is happening to you. That's the nature of it. It's included here because the public conversation focuses entirely on roadblock phone checks, while the broader interception framework attracts far less scrutiny.

5. What to do when asked for your phone

If you have NOT been arrested:

1. Ask: "Saya ditahan ke?" — Am I under arrest? This single question determines everything that follows.
2. Ask the officer's rank. The powers in play require Inspector or above.
3. Ask what offence is being investigated. Section 116B requires an ongoing investigation; LFL's formulation was that checks must be targeted at specific individuals with reasonable suspicion of involvement.
4. If no basis is given, you can politely decline. Say it calmly, once: "Encik, saya faham tugas encik, tapi saya tak bagi kebenaran tanpa sebab yang jelas."
5. Do not physically resist, snatch your phone back, or delete anything. Obstruction under s.186 Penal Code is a far worse problem than the request, and deleting material during an investigation is worse again.
6. Document immediately — officer's name, ID, rank, station, time, location, what was said, and what was accessed.

If you HAVE been arrested: the position is different. Your phone can be searched under s.20 read with s.116B. Asserting a right that doesn't apply achieves nothing.

What still helps:

• Ask for your lawyer. Section 28A gives you the right to contact counsel and to have them present before questioning.
• Ask for an inventory of what's seized. Your belongings must be recorded and returned on release.
• Note who accessed the device and when.

On being asked for your passcode: where s.116B applies to a lawful search, "access" expressly includes providing the password. This is not a situation to freelance in — say you want legal advice before providing codes, and let your lawyer deal with it.

A practical note on biometrics. A face or fingerprint unlock is physically easier to compel than a memorised passcode. If device privacy matters to you, a passcode-only lock is the more protective setting. That's a factual observation about how devices work, not advice to obstruct anything.

6. If your phone was searched unlawfully

Document first, argue later. SUHAKAM's own guidance: record the location, the examining officer's details, and file a report.

Where to complain:

• IPCC — the Independent Police Conduct Commission, operating since November 2023 under Act 839. Complaints must be in writing with particulars: officer identification or description, date, place, what happened, who else was present, and any documents or photographs. 03-8880 8811 / 8813, ipcc.gov.my. The Home Ministry expressly pointed to the IPCC for exactly this.
• SUHAKAM for human rights concerns.
• A police report, and legal advice if anything was seized or you were arrested.

On evidence obtained improperly: Malaysian courts have historically been willing to admit relevant evidence even where obtained irregularly, so an unlawful search does not automatically exclude what was found. That's a matter for your lawyer, and it's a reason to raise the issue properly rather than assume it fixes itself.

What to actually do

• Learn the one question: "Saya ditahan ke?" Not arrested and no stated basis means you can decline.
• Ask rank and offence. Inspector-and-above plus an ongoing investigation is the threshold.
• Never resist physically. Section 186 obstruction is worse than the search.
• Never delete anything.
• Document everything immediately afterwards.
• Complain to the IPCC in writing, with particulars, if it was improper.
• Use a passcode rather than biometrics if device privacy matters to you.
• If arrested, ask for a lawyer before providing any codes.