12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- In the judgment in the Tabqa Held (by the President A. Hayut, with the consent of the Vice-President H. Melcer, and against the judge's dissenting opinion A. Stein), because Section 2 The law authorizes the entities listed therein, including the police, to require a person to present an identity card; and that the exercise of such authority amounts to "delay", as defined in the law Criminal Procedure (Enforcement powers - Arrests), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: The Arrests Law), and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Detentions Law relating to the detention. However, it was held that the exercise of the authority under Section 2 The Identity Card Law is not contingent on the existence of Reasonable suspicion To commit an offense (as required In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests), a shoal in her case Section 69 to the Arrests Law, which deals with "Delay in the Search and Examination of Documents." At the same time, it was ruled that taking into account that requiring a person to present an identity card to a police officer may lead to a real violation of his right to dignity, this should be required only given "A specific need to find out if the person has an ID card or a need to find out Information About him that exists on the ID card" (para. 22 of the judgment; emphasis in the original). It was also held that in addition to the authority to demand identification as aforesaid, Section 2 The law does not authorize the police to carry out additional policing activities, such as "questioning and cross-checking the details of a person's identity card with the computer system in police cars" (para. 32). This is in light of the determination that the additional policing actions exacerbate the violation of the dignity of the person being examined and his freedom of movement, and even significantly violate his right to privacy.
- The Judge Stein He believed, in a minority opinion, that Section 2 The Identity Card Law does not confer the authority to require a person to present an identity card, and therefore the petitions must be accepted in full.
- In summary, the petitions were partially accepted, and it was ruled that the police would establish a new procedure regarding its authority under the Section 2 to the law, in a manner that will be consistent with the judgment.
- To complete the picture, it should be noted that both the petitioners and the respondent filed motions for an additional hearing in the judgment on the matter Tabqa (Additional Hearing: High Court of Justice2707/21; Additional Hearing: High Court of Justice2414/21; and discussion A High Court of Justice was added2698/21). In essence, the petitioners' motions were filed in relation to the determination that Section 2 The Identity Card Law serves as a source of authorization to demand identification, Even in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of committing an offense; and the Respondent's application was filed in relation to the determination that it is not authorized to carry out additional policing actions, beyond the aforesaid requirement of identification.
The motions were discussed jointly and rejected by the judge's decision v. Hendel Dated December 29, 2021. With regard to the petitioners' requests, it was held, inter alia, that the judgment in the matter of Tabqa does not change the legal situation in a way that justifies further hearing. With regard to the Respondent's application, it was emphasized, inter alia, that the aforementioned judgment focused on its authority under Section 2 The law has an identity card, and not its powers under other legislation.