In the second stage, only if there is "a reasonable suspicion that an offense has been committed and there is an operational need to do so in respect of an incident" (paragraph 39 of the affidavit of reply), the police officer may check additional information in the system, beyond that which appears on the ID card. To do so, the police officer must click on the "Extended Query" button, and confirm that he is "interested in expanding the information following an incident or suspicion of an offense."
According to the Respondent, these changes in the police terminal system are consistent with the judgment in the matter Tabqa; and the updated wording of section 5B of the procedure is consistent with the order nisi.
- On the other hand, the petitioners claim that section 5B of the procedure contradicts the judgment in the matter Tabqa, according to which Section 2 The ID Card Law does not authorize policing activities beyond the requirement to present an ID card. The petitioners emphasize that the alerts to which the police officer may be exposed, already at the first stage of verifying the details in the police system, expose him to information that does not exist in the identity card; and that, apart from the police, there is no competent authority In the section 2 The law has the power to carry out such verification checks or to be exposed to the aforementioned information, in a manner that strengthens the argument that even the police do not have the authority to carry out such checks. The petitioners add that the policeman's exposure to information that does not exist in his identity card may serve as a justification for his subjective fear, which is often based on stereotypes, in a way that may lead to an escalation of the situation, without a substantive justification; and that given that the person to whom the demand for identification is directed belongs, many times, to minority groups, the policeman's exposure to such information is expected to exacerbate the excessive policing that is already being exercised against them. It was also argued, inter alia, that the possibility of checking additional information in the system as part of the aforementioned Stage B relies on broad and vague criteria - "An incident or suspicion of an offense."
Section 5B of the Procedure - Discussion and Decision
- In the judgment in the Tabqa It was expressly determined, as stated, that beyond the requirement to identify by means of an identity card, Section 2 Law Isn't Authorizes the entities listed therein to carry out additional policing actions, such as "Questioning and cross-checking the details of a person's ID card with the computer system in police cars" (v. 32). It was emphasized that the additional policing actions are liable to significantly limit a person's freedom of movement, and even entail an additional dimension of humiliation and a more powerful violation of the dignity of the individual, compared to the very requirement to present an identity card. It was also determined with regard to the additional policing actions, that "this practice of using the data appearing on the identity card for the purpose of cross-checking it with an additional source of information, their analysis and decision-making based on them constitutes an invasion of privacy" (v. 34); and that "At the basis of the requirement to identify oneself by presenting an identity card is the need to determine a person's identity, and it cannot be seen only as a 'tool' for the purpose of carrying out a 'fishing trip' In relation to a person whose behavior does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of committing an offense" (v. 35).
- In our case, within the framework of the order on the probation of our parents as aforesaid, the respondent has to explain why not "Section 5B of the procedure will be repealed or amended in such a way that it will be clarified that the verification of the details is intended to verify the correctness of the certificate and what is stated therein"; As a result, the Respondent announced that it intends to draft clause 5B of the procedure as follows: "A police officer may verify the authenticity of the certificate or the details specified therein, by means of oral questions or through the police systems [...]".
- However, as detailed above, the respondent added that when a police officer seeks to verify the details appearing on a person's identity card, he may be exposed Automatically, already in the first step, for additional information about him that exists in the police information systems and is not part of the information on the identity card.
Thus, checking the details of the ID card in the police information systems is not only intended to "verify the authenticity of the ID card and what is stated in it," as the order nisi says, but also to provide the police officer with additional information about the ID card holder. Therefore, and taking into account the ruling in the Tabqa, I am of the opinion that the cancellation of section 5B of the procedure should be ordered.
- More than necessary, I will note that the Respondent lists three types of cases, which justify its approach to verifying the details of the identity card in the police information systems, by virtue of Section 2 Law: when it is required to ensure that the certificate is not forged; When the person who was asked to present an ID card does not hold it; and when the person does not have an appendix to the identity card, in which his address is recorded, among other things. As will be briefly explained below, I do not believe that these cases justify interpreting the Section 2 to the law in a manner that grants the authority described in section 5B of the procedure.
(-) When a reasonable basis arises for the suspicion that the identity card is forged, the police officer has powers by virtue of Section 67 Law The Arrests, and in any case, there is no need for powers in this matter by virtue of Section 2 to the Identity Card Law.