Detaining a Suspect for the Purpose of Identity Clarification and for the Purpose of Investigation
- The policeman [...] If a person suspects that a person has committed an offense or that there is a high probability that he is about to commit an offense soon, he may detain him in order to ascertain his identity and address, and he may also detain him in order to interrogate him or to collect his testimony at the location of his whereabouts.
If so, within the framework of the proposal The Arrests Law A threshold of "Suspicion" only, for the purpose of clarifying the identity of a person suspected of committing an offense in the past; and a roof of "High probability" to commit an offense "as soon as possible", for the purpose of clarifying the identity of a person who is suspected of committing an offense in the future.
Subsequently, in the framework of the discussions in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, in preparation of the The Arrests Law For the second and third readings, the question of the threshold required for the exercise of the authority conferred in the aforementioned section of the law is discussed at length (see, for example, the minutes of the 56th session of the Constitution Committee, the Law Law, the 14th Knesset (March 4, 1997), pp. 10-22; the minutes of the 64th session of the Constitution Committee, the Law Law, the 14th Knesset (March 18, 1997) (hereinafter: Transcript of March 18, 1997), pp. 5-20). Among other things, in these hearings, police representatives noted that the threshold of "high probability" raises a difficulty; and suggested that a threshold of "reasonable suspicion" be set in its place (transcript of March 18, 1997, p. 20) - An offer that was eventually accepted.
- Thus, the explicit threshold of "reasonable basis for suspicion", which is set for the purpose of exercising the power to detain a suspect or witness in order to require him to identify himself, reflects the balance point set by the legislature for this set of circumstances, between the need to enable the police to properly perform their duties and the need to protect individual rights. As explained above, this threshold was determined out of seriousness and consideration of the relevant positions, in the framework of the discussions that took place on this issue during the legislative process, in a manner that strengthens the conclusion that "circumvention" of that threshold should not be allowed through the interpretation of the general authority In the section 2 to the Identity Card Law.
- In an attempt to overcome the said difficulty, the Respondent argues that the powers granted to it In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests "far beyond the authority" to demand identification; and that therefore, these sections cannot serve as a basis for the conclusion that the exercise of the power to require a person to identify, by virtue of Section 2 The law, in the circumstances specified in section 4a(5) of the procedure, is conditional on a "reasonable basis for suspicion".
I cannot accept this argument.
- As detailed above, the set of circumstances described In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests It is essentially identical to the one described in section 4a(5) of the procedure, and concerns suspicions that an offense has been committed or is about to be committed. Regarding this set of circumstances, Section 67 Law The Arrests Provides that the authority to "detain a suspect on the spot" shall be established for one of two purposes: "In order to ascertain his identity and address or to interrogate him and hand him documents, where he is", but on the condition that "the policeman Reasonable grounds for suspicion". If so, according to Section 67 Law The Arrests, the authority to detain a suspect in order to ascertain his identity and address - It is also the authority prescribed, essentially, in section 4a(5) of the Procedure - Waist, per se, in the existence of a "reasonable basis for suspicion".
- It should be emphasized: deleted The Arrests And from the process of its legislation, it is clear that the legislature relates to the clarification of a person's identity as the main and distinct purpose of "delay".
First, it should be noted that The Arrests Law Defines "Delay" as "Restriction of a person's freedom to move freely, due to suspicion that an offense has been committed or to prevent the commission of an offense When the restriction of liberty is pre-qualified In time And absolutely, everything is as stated in this chapter". If so, le-khatḥila the legislature defines "delay" as an action with specific objectives, which will be specified in the Chapter 3' to the law The Arrests which are concerned with "delay", including Sections 68-67 to the Arrests Law. As detailed above, these sections define "identity and address clarification" as one of the two purposes of the power to detain a suspect or witness, and determine that it is a condition for the exercise of this power - In relation to each of the two goals - It is the existence of a "reasonable basis for suspicion."